Energy Policy Advocates issued the following statement to CLW:
The Supreme Court’s opinion this morning in Mayor and City of Baltimore v. BP plc et al., serves as another reminder of the importance of the state vs federal jurisdictional issue in the wave of “climate” litigation washing over state courthouses around the country. All of these suits represent transparent attempts to manufacture state jurisdiction for a previously admitted national campaign to substitute verdicts for a failed policy agenda.
This change in tack by the climate litigation industry followed several defeats in federal court which confirmed that this abusive multi-front campaign stands little chance there, where it belongs. As Energy Policy Advocates wrote in its amicus briefs before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ obsession with manufacturing jurisdiction in friendly (blue-)state fora derives from the apparent hope for more favorable rulings toward obtaining a “sustainable revenue stream” for these cities and states (and their contingency-fee attorneys).
Soon, EPA will reveal, for the first time, documents containing damning details about who is actually conducting this purportedly governmental litigation campaign and how they are doing it. EPA’s work under the state freedom of information laws makes continued doubt no longer credible about who is really bringing these nominally governmental suits into being. On remand to the Fourth Circuit — and in other fora in coming months — we look forward to shedding more light on these improper litigation tactics.