Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel refuses to give up her campaign of lawfare against oil companies, pushing allegations that oil and gas companies cause global warming and thus inflict damage on the state. Nessel recruited three out-of-state private law firms that specialize in activist litigation to bring the case on behalf of the state. Nessel claims that climate change, most of which occurs outside of the state’s borders, will decrease Michigan tourism, harm state agriculture and deplete Michigan’s tax base.
This litigation essentially copies lawsuits being brought in other states. Because cases in other states are further along, recent rulings from those states provide a useful preview of what Michigan judges might make of Nessel’s case.
In the case that may be the most similar to Michigan’s, a New Jersey judge on Feb. 5 dismissed with prejudice the New Jersey Attorney General’s attempt to collect damages from petroleum companies for their alleged role in accelerating climate change. This case was brought by the same lead law firm that Nessel has chosen to represent Michigan in its litigation.
The New Jersey court was particularly troubled by how the claims in the lawsuit were based on worldwide activities by oil companies, only a very small fraction of which occurred in New Jersey. According to the ruling: “Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case, this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.” The New Jersey judge added, quoting the defendant’s brief, “The federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions.”
A week earlier, a judge in Maryland dismissed a similar case, which was also brought by the attorneys representing Michigan. In that case, the judge ruled that the claims brought by the government were not subject to state law, which is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The Maryland case was the second bite at the apple for these attorneys, who brought a separate case on behalf of the City of Baltimore. The Baltimore case was dismissed last summer, with a Maryland state judge ruling that the “Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out of state pollution.”
In dismissing the Baltimore lawsuit, the judge cited a 2021 federal court case dismissing claims made by New York City. Since that 2021 case, New York City has tried two more times. All three of the Empire State’s climate change lawsuits have now been dismissed.
Source: NBC News