On July 8, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert in one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. The case, Suncor Energy Inc., et al v. Board of Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty., et al., is part of a coordinated, national litigation campaign filed in carefully chosen states and federal circuits by agenda-driven lawyers and activists. The issue presented is whether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable to federal court because they arise under federal law. On the few occasions where federal courts have reached the substance of these claims, the courts have concluded that the claims arise under federal common law and are displaced by the Clean Air Act.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs’ novel argument that their claims became viable under state law and could not be removed because Congress exercised its authority and displaced the federal common law by enacting the Clean Air Act—a theory that the Second Circuit referred to in a related case as “too strange to seriously contemplate.” Further, the 10th Circuit concluded that under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal courts are not permitted to look behind the veneer of the claims’ state law labels even when the labels are clearly masking federal law claims. In support of Supreme Court review, the NAM filed an amicus brief arguing that the subject matter and remedies sought through this litigation are inherently national, as well as legislative and regulatory in nature, and that such complex policy matters should not be driven by individual state judges in individual state courtrooms applying (or misapplying) various state liability laws.
Unfortunately, on April 24, 2023, the Court denied the petition for cert.