In the News Archives - Climate Litigation Watch

House Climate Show Trial to Support Biden’s Looming Pen-and-Phone Promises to Other Countries?

Show Trial increasingly looks to be move to pave the way for Biden climate promises at weekend G20 Summit + Glasgow “COP” beginning Monday There are more and more indications that Thursday’s House Oversight hearing, initially scheduled as an opportunity to berate the defendants in the floundering climate litigation industry, is not only intended to assist the plaintiffs […]

Disbarred Enviro Lawyer Sentenced — Led Litigation Campaign Cited in “Climate” Amicus Briefs

Environmentalist plaintiff’s trial lawyer Steven Donziger was just sentenced to six months in jail, after another finding of contempt (not directly for the actions which led to the verdict against him over litigation tactics). As the WSJ put it: “Disbarred attorney Steven Donziger was sentenced Friday to six months in prison for contempt of court […]

Amicus Brief in NY Federal Court Debunks 2018 “Missing Link” Claim; Reveals More New Records

Brief provides comprehensive summary of climate litigation industry, cites new documents supporting the claim that climate plaintiffs’ hunt for “sympathetic” state judges is behind fight to keep cases from federal courts Energy Policy Advocates does it again. EPA filed another friend of the court brief, this time in NYC v Exxon Mobil et al., removed […]

Leaning on Industry “Partners” to Impose Climate Agenda Back on Tap?

AGs, Biden Admin Targeted Industry to Become “Partners” to Impose “Climate-car” Auto Standards; Will DoJ Follow Through on Threat re: Litigation Campaign? Climate-industry observers should take close note of the model described here in which targeted industry become the federal government’s “partners” — not so much Gangster Government, but more a combination of Hostage-taking and Wolfpack Government: […]

Supremely Good Timing

You likely have heard that the Supreme Court reached the right decision today in BP plc et al. v. City of Baltimore. That opinion concerns a mildly weedy procedural mater (whether the 4th Cir. erred in holding that it lacked the power to consider all of the defendants’ grounds for removal), but a critical one given the circumstances, and an opinion which should help in removing these cases […]