Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of the Attorney General

The U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that allowed the Massachusetts attorney general to proceed with a climate change-related investigation of Exxon’s marketing and sales of its products. Exxon argued that the Massachusetts court’s standard for personal jurisdiction violated due process.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court order denying ExxonMobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to bar the Massachusetts attorney general from pursuing her investigation of whether Exxon’s marketing or sale of its fossil fuel products violated the Massachusetts consumer protection law. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Exxon was subject to personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. The court also rejected Exxon’s argument that the civil investigative demand (CID) was “overbroad and unduly burdensome” or that it was “arbitrary and capricious” because it was issued “solely as a pretext.” In addition, the court concluded that disqualification of the attorney general’s office was not necessitated by her participation in the “AGs United for Clean Power” press conference and found that the Superior Court had not abused its discretion by denying a stay pending the resolution of Exxon’s federal lawsuit against the attorney general. The Supreme Judicial Court also affirmed the order granting the attorney general’s cross motion to compel Exxon’s compliance with the CID.

A Massachusetts Superior Court denied ExxonMobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to set aside a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the Massachusetts attorney general seeking information on Exxon’s study of carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on climate change. The court also denied Exxon’s request that it stay its adjudication of the motion pending the resolution of the federal lawsuit brought by Exxon in Texas against the attorney general in which Exxon sought to bar enforcement of the CID. The Superior Court said that Massachusetts state courts would be more familiar with the state consumer protection act pursuant to which the CID was issued and further noted that the statute directed challenges to CID be brought in state court. The court concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over Exxon, finding that Exxon’s due process rights were not offended given its establishment of “minimum contacts” in Massachusetts. The court also said that the state consumer protection act would provide “hollow protection against non-resident defendants” if the court did not assert jurisdiction. The court also found that Exxon had not met its burden of showing that the attorney general acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the CID, indicating her concerns regarding potential misrepresentations to Massachusetts consumers justified the CID. The court was not swayed by Exxon’s argument that it was being subjected to viewpoint discrimination for its views on global warming. The court also rejected Exxon’s arguments that the CID lacked the requisite specificity and was unreasonably burdensome. In addition, the court denied Exxon’s request for disqualification of the attorney general and appointment of an independent investigator. The court noted that the attorney general’s public remarks at a March 2016 press conference with other attorneys general did not evidence actionable bias and that her comments did nothing more than explain her reasons for the investigation to the consumers she represents. The court granted the attorney general’s request to compel Exxon to respond to the CID.

In a letter to Exxon’s counsel in connection with her office’s climate change investigation, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey expressed concerns regarding the Wayne Tracker email account revealed in the New York attorney general's investigation.