Sunoco LP v. City & County of Honolulu

On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions for writ of certiorari in which fossil fuel companies sought review of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision allowing the City and County of Honolulu to proceed with its climate change-based claims against the defendants. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the petitions.

The Solicitor General of the United States submitted a brief to the Court expressing the U.S.’s view that the Court should deny the certiorari petitions. The Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s interlocutory decision because it was not a final judgment and did not qualify for treatment as final based on an exception for cases in which the state courts have finally decided the federal issue and the parties seeking review might prevail on nonfederal grounds in further proceedings and where reversal of the state court ruling on the federal action would preclude the further litigation and the refusal to immediately review the state court decision “might seriously erode federal policy.” The Solicitor General also argued that the merits did not warrant the Court’s review at this time because the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had correctly rejected the petitioners’ reliance on federal common law and also correctly determined that the Clean Air Act did not preempt Honolulu’s claims. The Solicitor General distinguished other cases, including the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision affirming dismissal of <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-plc/">claims brought by New York City</a> against fossil fuel company defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision allowing Honolulu to proceed with its climate change lawsuit against fossil fuel companies. Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration of the petitions. The petitions present questions related to whether federal law preempts Honolulu’s state law claims.

On May 1, 2024, the City and County of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Honolulu) filed their brief responding to fossil fuel companies’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision affirming the denial of the companies’ motions to dismiss Honolulu’s climate change case. Honolulu alleges that the defendants’ concealment and promotion of false and misleading information about their products’ contribution to climate change caused climate-related impacts. In the brief opposing certiorari, Honolulu first argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s interlocutory decision, which did not satisfy any exception to the statutory provision making certiorari review of state high court decisions available only from final judgments or decrees. Honolulu argued that even if the Court had jurisdiction, the petitions did not identify a “cert-worthy split” because the cases identified by the companies as conflicting, including the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., involved imposition of liability based on emissions, while Honolulu’s case sought to impose liability based on the defendants’ failures to warn, failures to disclose, and deceptive marketing regarding their products. In addition, Honolulu argued that denying certiorari was appropriate because the decision below correctly rejected preemption defenses based on federal common law and “constitutional structure,” on the Clean Air Act, and on interference with federal authority over foreign affairs. Honolulu also contended that even if the Court had jurisdiction to review, the interlocutory decision was a “particularly poor vehicle for considering petitioners’ preemption defenses” because of the lack of finality. Honolulu argued that “benefits of percolation weigh heavily in favor of denying certiorari” because multiple state courts were evaluating the preemption defenses and the Court had recognized that the “collective wisdom” of lower courts was especially important when certiorari petitions raise issues of first impression.

On February 28, 2024, fossil fuel companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s October 2023 decision allowing the City and County of Honolulu and the local water utility board (Honolulu) to proceed with state common law claims based on the companies’ alleged misrepresentations and concealment of their products’ contributions to climate change. The companies’ petition presented a single question: “Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The companies contended that the case presented the Court with “its only foreseeable opportunity in the near future to decide a dispositive question that is arising in every climate-change case.” They characterized the question as one “of extraordinary importance to the energy industry, which is facing dozens of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the alleged effects of global climate change.” They argued that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision conflicted with the Second Circuit’s decision in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-plc/">City of New York v. BP p.l.c.</a>—which held that federal law precluded similar claims by New York City—and also could not be reconciled with other federal circuit of appeals decisions regarding the application of state law to interstate pollution. The companies also argued that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which the companies summarized as providing that “regulation of interstate pollution is an inherently federal area necessarily governed by federal law, and Congress has not permitted—and indeed has preempted—resort to state law except for claims seeking redress for harms caused by in-state emissions.” The companies also argued that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s conclusion that Honolulu’s claims “did not fall within the inherently federal area of interstate pollution” was based on “a false dichotomy” between injury caused by failure to warn and deceptive promotion and injury caused by interstate and international emissions. The companies contended that the Supreme Court’s review was warranted because “[t]he stakes could not be higher”; they stated that the more than two dozen cases filed by states and municipalities against fossil fuel companies “present a serious threat to one of the Nation’s most vital industries.” They argued that allowing cases to proceed under state law was “a blueprint for chaos” and that Honolulu’s case was a “suitable vehicle” for reviewing the question presented.