United States v. Hawaii

In the United States’ lawsuit seeking to prevent the State of Hawaii (the State) and the Hawaii governor and attorney general (collectively the “State defendants”) from filing a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to hold them liable for harms resulting from climate change, the federal district court for the District of Hawaii granted the State defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court found that the U.S. failed to allege any of the elements of standing. First, the court found that the U.S.—which filed its lawsuit one day before the State filed a state court lawsuit against fossil fuel companies—did not allege a concrete injury in fact because the U.S.’s complaint relied on conclusory allegations and a speculative theory of harm. The court also found that the complaint did not provide a basis to find that a lawsuit filed by the State “would predictably result” in harm to the U.S. The court also found that the declaratory relief sought by the U.S. would not redress the alleged injury and that federal courts would not grant injunctive relief halting a state court lawsuit based on a hypothetical injury to the United States. The court also found that the U.S.’s “abstract, theoretical concerns” regarding the State’s potential lawsuit were not redressable. Although standing analysis is based on the facts that existed at the time a complaint is filed, the court also concluded that consideration of the state court complaint would not alter the conclusion that the U.S. lacked standing, given that the U.S.’s complaint “did not correctly predict the nature of the state law tort claims” the defendants would assert and given that the U.S.’s theory of harm was still based on “a series of abstract harms and contingencies about hypothetical actions third parties may take.”