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.

On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to submit a brief expressing the views of the United States on the motion filed by Alabama and 18 other states in May 2024 for leave to file a bill of complaint against five states that are pursuing climate change lawsuits against energy companies. In their motion, the plaintiff states contended that the lawsuits “threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.” The plaintiff states argued that the Court should exercise its original jurisdiction because there was no alternative forum in which they could seek relief.

Alabama and 18 other states filed a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to file a bill of complaint against five states that are pursuing climate change lawsuits against energy companies. The five defendant states are California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The plaintiff states alleged that the defendant states “assert the power to dictate the future of the American energy industry … by imposing ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies through state tort actions governed by state law in state court.” The plaintiff states contended that the lawsuits “threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.” The plaintiff states argued that federal law must govern actions involving interstate gas emissions, and that the defendant states actions “exceed state authority, flout the horizontal separation of powers, usurp federal authority over a federal issue, and violate the prohibition on extraterritorial regulation embodied in the Commerce Clause.” They contended that the Supreme Court should exercise jurisdiction because there was no alternative forum in which the plaintiff states could protect their interests. The plaintiff states asked the Court to enjoin the defendant states “from seeking to impose liability or obtain equitable relief premised on either emissions by or in Plaintiff States or the promotion, use, and/or sale of traditional energy products in or to Plaintiff States.”