Audrey Streb
Contributor
The Trump administration filed lawsuits Wednesday against Michigan and Hawaii in an attempt to block the states from seeking damages in court against fossil fuel companies for alleged environmental harm.
The complaint filed against Michigan, the state’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, claims that Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry interferes with U.S. policy on greenhouse gas regulation and is an “extraordinary extraterritorial reach.” Similarly, the complaint against Hawaii, the state’s Democratic Gov. Josh Green and the state’s Attorney General Anne Lopez, was filed due to the state’s plan to take legal action against fossil fuel companies for their alleged impact on climate change.
Though neither state has filed a lawsuit as of yet, the planned legal actions could drive up energy prices and interfere with how fossil fuel production is regulated, according to the complaints filed by lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
“At a time when States should be contributing to a national effort to secure reliable sources of domestic energy, Michigan is choosing to stand in the way,” the complaint said. “This Nation’s Constitution and laws do not tolerate this interference,” it continues. The complaint against Hawaii repeats near-identical language.
gov.uscourts.miwd.115297.1.0 by audreystreb on Scribd
In May 2024, Nessel announced that the state would be seeking “attorneys and law firms to serve as Special Assistant Attorneys General to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the State of Michigan.” Nessel further accused the industry of endangering the state’s environment, economy and residents’ well-being by contributing to climate change.
“As a result of state restrictions and burdens on energy production, the American people are paying more for energy, and the United States is less able to defend itself from hostile foreign actors,” both DOJ lawsuits read.
Hawaii followed in Michigan’s footsteps on April 28, as the state’s governor announced that he had similar intentions to take fossil fuel companies to court.
“We will be filing suit, I believe, on Thursday against the fossil fuel companies,” Green said Monday. “They have to pay their share because climate change and the climate impact is definitely connected to generations of extra fossil fuel that’s been burned,” he continued.
“The United States’ sovereign interests include ensuring that States do not interfere with federal law, including the Clean Air Act, or with the federal government’s exclusive authority over interstate and foreign commerce, greenhouse gas regulation, and national energy policy,” the DOJ lawsuits read.
President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency on his first day back in office, seeking to expand reliable domestic energy production. He later signed an executive order on April 8 to revive the coal industry, and shortly after moved to exempt several coal plants from Biden-era regulations. The same day, Trump signed an order to shield energy producers from state overreach, stating that “American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities.”
“No amount of Democrat obstruction will stop President Trump from delivering on the promises he made to the American people, including his promise to unleash American energy,” Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement to the DCNF before the administration went forward with the lawsuits. “Radical, out-of-touch Democrats should clean up the disasters they’ve created in their own states before trying to promote their failed policies to the rest of America.”
USDC Hawaii 1 25cv179. by audreystreb on Scribd
Whitmer in 2023 signed the Clean Energy and Jobs Act, mandating that Michigan achieve 100% green energy generation by 2040. The law also gave the state’s utility regulator authority to override local governments when approving locations for renewable energy infrastructure. (RELATED: ‘Taking Away Local Control’: Whitmer Signs Massive Green Energy Mandate Into Law)
“In order to meet this mandate of 100% green energy, the only way the Whitmer administration can do it is by taking away local control of land,” Republican Michigan State Rep. Matt Hall told the Daily Caller News Foundation at the time. “These local governments are closest to the people and are trying to protect the character of their communities.”
In his statement, Hall pointed to one of the more controversial parts of the legislation that allows the state’s utility regulator — led by appointees of the governor — to override local governments for wind and solar projects, according to MLive. While Michigan currently uses around 17,000 acres for renewable energy, The Detroit News reported that the state may need as many as 209,000 additional acres to meet its clean energy targets.
Hawaii has similarly enacted policies aiming to meet a “zero-emission goal of 100-percent clean energy by 2045.”
The offices of Green, Whitmer, Nessel and Lopez, as well as the White House, did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. The DOJ referred the DCNF to its press release when reached for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
State lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry violate the Commerce Clause of the constitution, as they are attempts
to regulate interstate commerce. Calling it a tort suit is a transparent dodge.
Nope – all persons in the US (including states) have a first amendment right to petition the government, which is what any lawsuit is. The merits of their suits may be such that either the plaintiffs are unqualified, or the substance of their claims is without merit.
I would disagree with the standing of any state government. It is impossible to separate out state regulation and pretextual suits to reach the same goals.
There is also the business of standing.
If the Oil Company is not registered (corporate) in the State, then if becomes very interesting.
Yes, the first amendment is part of “The Law of The Land”.
But so is the Commerce Clause.
In your opinion, the state suing a company is an action whereby the state is petitioning itself?
Rather than suing, I think it would be much more effective if the fossil fuel companies simply stopped providing their products to those states for a period of say 6 months, based on the argument that if their products are so harmful then they are doing the right thing in immediately stopping them. Given I reckon both states would be on their knees within a week, it could be a salutary lesson for the states concerned. And a very clear signal to the courts that stupid decisions like damages for keeping the lights on is self-defeating.
I think 5 days would be enough to call their bluff, we don’t want the FF companies to lose revenue do we?
Part of me thinks it would only be a day or two, once the public realized there was no fuel to be had. There’d be so much screaming and so many lawsuits flying around that the courts would have to step in, and if any of them tried to force the oil companies to keep on selling, that seems like a real good way to either block the state lawsuits or fast-track it to the Supreme Court. But IANAL.
The main purpose would be to expose the states’ hypocrisy.
That’s not gonna happen, but they could add a surcharge to help defer the cost of defending themselves from Wicked Witch Whitmer et al. Just require every distributor to post a sticker on every gas pump explaining the reason for the extra cost.
I think the states would then sue the FF companies for withholding an essential product. They like having it both ways.
See my post above. If the Oil companies solicit and get a court ordered injunction…
Natural gas would be immediate.
Gasoline would be a couple of days for the pumps to run dry.
What will be interesting is to see how the States can implement their SV and WTGs with no hydrocarbons or coal the fabricate the parts and especially transport the piece to the sites and construct the obscenities.
My first thought, passenger aircraft from the west coast having to carry enough fuel for the round trip, back to the coast. Total payload isn’t going to change, so number of passengers would be cut. Double the price of a ticket? That’s not going to help the tourist industry.
Okay, so we have a bunch of whining, crying CAGW crackpots claiming that fossil fuels are a danger and fossil fuel manufacturers knew they were manufacturing a dangerous substance yet they willingly consumed the dangerous product. Worse yet they continue to consume the dangerous product. These clowns need to be arrested and thrown in jail just for being stupid and wasting our time, money and resources.
One might say “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. Of course there wouldn’t be a game without players.
No, hate the players, target the players, bankrupt the players.
Yes. That’s my take as well.
They are mentally ill leftists we are seeing in action that is why they make these self-defeating decisions that are so gobsmackingly stupid!
Not really. They are politicians who see an opportunity to get significant funds into their coffers.
Why haven’t these states just outlawed CO2 emissions in their own jurisdictions instead of seeking money from wealthy producers? Convince me that the AGW agenda is not a shakedown racket.
At some point people will realize that when democrats shake down oil companies for cash, the result is identical to imposing import tariffs on goods.
And as we all know, ALL democrats are opposed to instituting import tariffs on goods. They are on the streets daily condemning them.
Gretchen Whitmer even hid her face behind a folder while standing in the oval office when Trump was signing executive orders because she did not want to be associated with that.
+10
Part of me wants to see how the suits play out, how the states show damages from fossil fuel use, from a .015°C average temperature increase per year, without looking at benefits.
But another part of me knows all they have to do is wave their arms in front of scientifically illiterate judges and juries, reading out doomsday climate porn that tries to pass itself off as peer reviewed research. And what damage and harm can they point to? Future melting ice and sea level rise? Future crop failures? Extinct species that they only predicted to exist in the first place and never actually documented or catalogued? Super storms predicted but never materialized?
There are no damages now so how can they sue?
Not arguing with you, but is your 0.15 °C/year figure correct? That’s 1.5 °C/decade or 15 °C /century. Unless my math is wrong, that doesn’t sound correct.
What PCman999 said was 0.015°C/year. So, yes, indeed, your math is very wrong . . . by an order of magnitude. Perhaps you owe an an apology.
Thanks, my bad. My math was right, but my eyes were wrong. Misplaced the decimal.
From the article: “to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the State of Michigan.”
What climate change impacts?
I want to see the case they try to make showing CO2 has climate impacts, in Michigan, or anywhere else.
They can’t prove a connection between fossil fuels and anything to do with the Earth’s climate. All they have is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, none of which should stand up in Court before a competent judge.
No lawyer can overcome a biased judge. I trust that Donald Trump’s legal team have made sure that as the case works its way up through the layers of the court system, the final layer will have an unbiased judge(s).
Let’s hope.
The fact that political parties must vet potential judges before they are considered for appointment means that all judges are selected using prejudice.
There is no way around that. All judges are either elected with political party endorsements or appointed with political party consent.
Good. The Rebel Alliance Strikes Back against the Climate Empire. Take that, Climate Caterwaulers.
Energy producers need to start suing, individually, the people bringing these frivolous lawsuits. Do it in large numbers and bankrupt them personally, THEN go after their organizations and bankrupt them. Also, lawsuits against their fundraisers. Can’t tell me these companies don’t have enough scabknees on staff to make this happen. Fuck defense, go after them aggressively and viciously, break them.
Unfortunately as pleasant as it is to envision such a quest, the media will turn it into something evil.
Afterall, merely by posting on this website is sufficient proof that I am a shill of the oil companies.
As much as one may opposed actual or threatened lawsuits by the states in question, it is impermissible under our constitution to prohibit petitions to the government – petitioning the government is one of the precious rights enshrined in the first amendment.
So Trump’s lawsuit is going nowhere and will be dismissed rather quickly.
If and when certain states do file lawsuits, they have a right to be heard if properly qualified (i.e.,. with standing), and if their lawsuits have no merit, they too will be dismissed. The proper response from the Trump admin is to intervene in whatever lawsuits may be filed on behalf of the defendants, or as a defendant if so named.
That is the way it is supposed to work.
Ever hear of judge shopping?
In a judicial system with no bias, judge shopping is impossible as it cannot exist. There is after all, previously written law that is being decided.
Since everyone judge shops, it can only mean that our judicial system is biased.
I suppose that is why when congress is told they can make make “no law” by the constitution that they go ahead and make a law anyway. They also vote to confirm judges that think that “no law” means “some law”.
Another though for which I have not done due diligence is: are State courts part of the Federal Government and if not, how does that apply?
How can a government suing a company, be considered a petition of government?
Simple. Oil companies go to courts in those States and get injunctions forbidding them to bring oil into those State, gasoline, methane included, and to shut down any oil processing facilities within the State borders and do so immediately.
When the States protest: (A) it is a court order and (B) doing so the oil company would be contributing to the alleged impact on climate change.
In other words, Governor, you made your bed, now sleep in it.
Those states should buy REALLY long extension cords and plug into Spain’s grid.
How can any state or city sue a company for making a product that they cannot function without???
As soon as it gets to court, the judge should ask the plaintiff, does your state/city use fossil fuels?
They could only answer yes.
At that point the judge should rule “Case dismissed”.
What about those who are actually burning the fossil fuels? All of the fossil fuel companies should just stop doing business in those blue states. Those blue states should just make it illegal to make use of or possess any fossil fuels.