19 votes

The Supreme Court just declined to hear Exxon Mobil’s appeal in a climate change lawsuit

4 comments

  1. sublime_aenima
    Link
    Depending on what is in these documents, it can lead to more lawsuits as well as having a strong impact on other ongoing lawsuits. At the very least it should be enough to shut up the climate...

    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided last April that Exxon would have to start turning over internal documents about its knowledge about the impacts of fossil fuel combustion on the global climate. Exxon appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Massachusetts attorney general doesn’t have jurisdiction to compel the company to release documents.

    Depending on what is in these documents, it can lead to more lawsuits as well as having a strong impact on other ongoing lawsuits. At the very least it should be enough to shut up the climate change deniers.

    It’s also interesting to me that the focus of these suits seems to be based on Exxon mobile lying to investors and shareholders rather than environmental impact, the former being easier to prove in court.

    9 votes
  2. [3]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    It would have been nice to know why the Supreme Court declined the appeal. According to the Supreme Court document linked in this article, this is the full explanation: That's it. I've searched...

    It would have been nice to know why the Supreme Court declined the appeal.

    According to the Supreme Court document linked in this article, this is the full explanation:

    CERTIORARI DENIED

    18-311 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. HEALEY, ATT'Y GEN. OF MA

    That's it.

    I've searched elsewhere, and can't find any reason for this denial.

    It might be that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over this case. It might be that all the t's weren't crossed and all the i's weren't dotted in the appeal documents. Or it might be that the appeal is flawed at law, and the Attorney General of Massachusetts does have jurisdiction to compel Exxon-Mobil to release documents. It might be anything. But we don't know. That's frustrating.

    7 votes
    1. [2]
      burkaman
      Link Parent
      The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year, and accepts one or two percent of them. A denial is usually not news, and just means the lower court's decision was "correct", in that...

      The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year, and accepts one or two percent of them. A denial is usually not news, and just means the lower court's decision was "correct", in that it agrees with current legal precedent and does not conflict with the Constitution. In reality that's not the whole story; if they think a petition has merit, they still might reject it because it's too narrow to set a worthwhile precedent, or even just because they think the lawyers arguing it won't do a good enough job. That's because their job is not just to resolve disputes, it's to set the interpretation of law and serve as a check on the legislative branch. If a case won't serve one of those purposes, it's not worth hearing.

      Most of the time, there's no explanation because there's nothing to explain. "Your petition was denied because the decision you're appealing was correct." That's almost certainly the case here, because Exxon and Massachusetts both have excellent lawyers, and this is a very straightforward decision about "whether a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation" in very specific circumstances.

      6 votes
      1. Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        Like I said, that would be nice to know. "CERTIORARI DENIED" is a blank canvas, on to which one can project anything. Even a single line saying "this decision was correct" would provide some...

        Most of the time, there's no explanation because there's nothing to explain. "Your petition was denied because the decision you're appealing was correct." That's almost certainly the case here

        Like I said, that would be nice to know. "CERTIORARI DENIED" is a blank canvas, on to which one can project anything. Even a single line saying "this decision was correct" would provide some useful context.