Product Liability -- active



Alabama v. California   (U.S. Supreme Court)

Challenging state regulation of climate policy

On July 23, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear 19 Republican State Attorneys General’s complaint seeking to block five states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island—from pursuing climate change litigation against energy manufacturers. The Constitution authorizes the Court to hear disputes between states. In this case, the 19 State AGs contend that the States that have brought climate change litigation are attempting to regulate interstate GHG emissions through tort actions against energy producers—actions that violate the “horizontal separation of powers, usurp federal authority over a federal issue, and violate the prohibition on extraterritorial regulation embodied in the Commerce Clause.”

We argue in our brief that review is necessary because the subject matter and remedies sought in the climate change lawsuits are inherently national, as well as legislative and regulatory in nature—such complex policy matters should not be driven by individual state judges in individual state courtrooms applying (or misapplying) various state liability laws. Further, state courts have thus far been split on whether a state can sue energy manufacturers for emissions that occur outside their borders. The Court’s review is needed now to provide guidance.


Related Documents:
NAM brief  (July 23, 2024)