Will She or Won't She? - Climate Litigation Watch

Will She or Won’t She?

Would a President Harris Weaponize DoJ Against “Climate” Opponents—as Promised?

Someone asked CLW, how will coming months reveal Kamala Harris to be different than Joe Biden on “climate”? This is a question the trade press also are asking.

The following sets forth what are quite possibly the most important, yet hardly discussed, considerations:

* There has been much gnashing of teeth of late objecting to the scandalous suggestion that a President would direct his Attorney General who to pursue.

* Except of course the Biden-Harris campaign promised just that, including specifically to “strategically support ongoing plaintiff-driven climate litigation against polluters”.

* The failure to date to openly act on that troubling campaign promise upset the administration’s political base. See, e.g., “Biden fails to fulfill pledge on climate lawsuits.” There clearly was an understanding, recent pearl-clutching notwithstanding.

* That political base no doubt is pressuring certain parties to now grant the promised wish.

* The Supreme Court recently asked the DoJ to provide the administration’s view on this campaign and particularly the determinative issue of jurisdiction (if these cases go to federal court, they die there; if state court despite everything reported here and elsewhere, then the cases proceed). This will offer one fairly strong signal whether a President Harris intends to, as rather incredibly promised, sic DoJ on opponents/targets to advance the never-enacted “climate” or energy suppression policy agenda.

* For those seeking evidence of which way that wind would blow, there is of course this. However, more telling are documents uncovered by the Competitive Enterprise Institute showing that, as California Attorney General, Kamala Harris lent her office to discussions about launching this very same campaign of “ongoing plaintiff-driven climate litigation”

…which participation was then scrubbed from the documentation. Apparently, someone at California’s DoJ concluded this was not something to advertise.