Alabama v. California

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Alabama and 18 other states’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint to block California and four other states from pursuing their climate change-based cases against fossil fuel companies. The plaintiff states had contended that the lawsuits “threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.” They argued that the Court should exercise its original jurisdiction because there was no alternative forum in which they could seek relief. Justices Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial. Justice Thomas wrote that because Congress had given the Court “exclusive” original jurisdiction over “all controversies between two or more States,” “our jurisdiction in this context would seem to be compulsory.”

–

The Solicitor General argued that the Court should deny a motion by Alabama and 18 other states for leave to file a bill of complaint against states that had brought climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel industry defendants. The Solicitor General contended that the plaintiff states’ alleged economic harms from the defendant states’ lawsuits depended on contingencies that were “too speculative and too attenuated to establish standing.” The Solicitor General also argued that the complaint did not satisfy the Court’s criteria for exercising original jurisdiction because only the interests of private companies were directly at stake and the pending lawsuits were a better vehicle for addressing issues raised by the plaintiff states.