High Court Declines Plea to Scrap Litigation over Honolulu's Climate Change Policy in Oil and Gas Sector
In a significant development, the Hawaii Supreme Court has allowed a climate change lawsuit filed by the Honolulu government against major oil and gas companies to proceed in state court. The lawsuit, which was first initiated in 2020, accuses companies such as BP, Shell, and Exxon of contributing to climate damages linked to their fossil fuel production and alleged deception about climate risks.
The oil and gas industry has challenged the jurisdiction of the state court, arguing that a pending federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice should take precedence. The companies contend that the federal case might fully or partially resolve the issues raised by the state’s action, potentially limiting the claims or clarifying federal legal questions that impact Hawaii’s case.
However, Hawaii’s case relies heavily on state law doctrines such as the public trust doctrine, which mandates the protection of natural resources for the public and holds polluters accountable for harm caused to these resources. Hawaii courts have shown receptiveness to environmental claims invoking state constitutional rights and public trust principles, which support state jurisdiction even when pollution originates beyond state borders.
The jurisdictional challenges arise because pollution and greenhouse gas emissions cross state and national boundaries, complicating which court system is appropriate. Federal courts often hear cases involving interstate commerce and regulation of emissions, while state courts focus on local environmental harms and public resource protections. Hawaii’s lawsuit challenges this balance by pursuing accountability in state court for globally dispersed pollution impacts tied to fossil fuel companies.
The oil and gas companies argue that the lawsuit is, in effect, trying to obtain damages for the "cumulative effect of worldwide emissions leading to global climate change." Lawyers for the companies maintain that state courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on interstate pollution. However, the Hawaii Supreme Court explicitly rejected this argument, stating that the lawsuit does not attempt to regulate interstate emissions through litigation.
The Biden administration responded by asking that the companies' requests be dismissed. The oil and gas companies have since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the October decision regarding the Hawaii climate change lawsuit. The companies argue that the case is of "extraordinary importance" to the energy industry.
This development reflects broader legal trends recognising the duty of states and courts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable despite interstate pollution complexities. Internationally and in U.S. courts such as those in Montana and Hawaii, the recognition of the right to a healthy climate and government duties to regulate corporate conduct on climate change is growing. These developments strengthen the legal basis for state courts to hear climate-related claims despite interstate pollution complexities, reinforcing state-level jurisdiction over fossil fuel companies’ climate harms.
- The ongoing climate-change lawsuit filed by the Honolulu government against major oil and gas companies, such as BP, Shell, and Exxon, is supported by state law doctrines like the public trust doctrine, which is a key aspect of environmental-science, and emphasizes the protection of natural resources for the public and holds polluters accountable for any harm caused.
- In response to the jurisdictional challenges in the Hawaii climate-change lawsuit, the Biden administration asked that the companies' requests be dismissed, highlighting the growing recognition of the right to a healthy climate and government duties to regulate corporate conduct on climate change issues, which falls under the domain of scientific and energy policy.
- As the oil and gas industry continues to argue that state courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on interstate pollution, the Hawaii Supreme Court has clarified that the lawsuit does not attempt to regulate interstate emissions through litigation but rather aims to hold companies accountable for climate damages linked to their fossil fuel production and alleged deception about climate risks, which directly impacts the environmental-science and finance sectors.
