Supreme Court declines to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t hear an appeal from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change.
The industry has faced a series of lawsuits saying it deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Governments in states including California, Colorado and New Jersey are seeking billions of dollars in damages from things like wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms. The lawsuits come during a wave of legal actions in the U.S. and worldwide seeking to leverage action on climate change through the courts.
In Hawaii, the oil and gas companies appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in front of the state’s highest court on a lawsuit from the city of Honolulu.
The companies argue emissions are a national issue that should instead be fought over in federal court, where they’ve successfully had suits tossed out.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” attorneys wrote in court documents. The lawsuits “present a serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries.”
The Democratic Biden administration weighed in at the justices’ request and urged them to reject the case, saying it’s fair to keep it in state court at this point. The incoming Republican Trump administration is expected to take a sharply different view of environmental law and energy production.
Honolulu argued it’s made a strong case under state laws against deceptive marketing and it should be allowed to play out there. “Deceptive commercial practices fall squarely within the core interests and historic powers of the states,” attorneys wrote.
The industry has faced a series of lawsuits saying it deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Governments in states including California, Colorado and New Jersey are seeking billions of dollars in damages from things like wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms. The lawsuits come during a wave of legal actions in the U.S. and worldwide seeking to leverage action on climate change through the courts.
In Hawaii, the oil and gas companies appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in front of the state’s highest court on a lawsuit from the city of Honolulu.
The companies argue emissions are a national issue that should instead be fought over in federal court, where they’ve successfully had suits tossed out.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” attorneys wrote in court documents. The lawsuits “present a serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries.”
The Democratic Biden administration weighed in at the justices’ request and urged them to reject the case, saying it’s fair to keep it in state court at this point. The incoming Republican Trump administration is expected to take a sharply different view of environmental law and energy production.
Honolulu argued it’s made a strong case under state laws against deceptive marketing and it should be allowed to play out there. “Deceptive commercial practices fall squarely within the core interests and historic powers of the states,” attorneys wrote.
Supreme Court to weigh reinstating Obamacare care requirements struck down by lower court
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider reinstating some preventative care coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act that were struck down by a lower court.
The federal government appealed to the high court after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with employers who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. The lower-court ruling chipped away at the program sometimes referred to as Obamacare.
Challengers raised religious and procedural objections to some of the requirements.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the KFF, a nonprofit, found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
Services and medications that might not be covered under the ruling include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screening, HIV prevention, as well as medications to lower the risk of breast cancer for high-risk women, the group found.
The requirements now remain in place for now, except for the eight companies who sued.
The conservative 5th Circuit found that coverage requirements were adopted unconstitutionally because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The court is expected to hear the case in the spring.
The federal government appealed to the high court after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with employers who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. The lower-court ruling chipped away at the program sometimes referred to as Obamacare.
Challengers raised religious and procedural objections to some of the requirements.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the KFF, a nonprofit, found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
Services and medications that might not be covered under the ruling include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screening, HIV prevention, as well as medications to lower the risk of breast cancer for high-risk women, the group found.
The requirements now remain in place for now, except for the eight companies who sued.
The conservative 5th Circuit found that coverage requirements were adopted unconstitutionally because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The court is expected to hear the case in the spring.
Supreme Court turns back Utah’s push to wrest control of public land from the federal government
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court turned back a push by the state of Utah to wrest control of vast areas of public land from the federal government on Monday.
The high court refused to let the GOP-controlled state file a lawsuit seeking to bring the land and its resources under state control. The decision came in a brief order in which the court did not explain its reasoning, as is typical.
In the Western state known for its rugged mountains popular with skiers and red-rock vistas that draw throngs of tourists, federal agencies control almost 70% of the land. Utah argues that local control would be more responsive and allow the state access to revenue from taxes and development projects.
Its complaint sought control of about half of federal land, which still amounts to an area nearly as large as South Carolina. The parcels are used for things like energy production, grazing, mining and recreation. Its world-famous national parks and national monuments would have stayed in federal hands.
While lawsuits typically start in federal district courts and eventually work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, disputes involving states can start at the nation’s highest court if the justices agree to hear them.
The federal Bureau of Land Management declined to comment.
The high court refused to let the GOP-controlled state file a lawsuit seeking to bring the land and its resources under state control. The decision came in a brief order in which the court did not explain its reasoning, as is typical.
In the Western state known for its rugged mountains popular with skiers and red-rock vistas that draw throngs of tourists, federal agencies control almost 70% of the land. Utah argues that local control would be more responsive and allow the state access to revenue from taxes and development projects.
Its complaint sought control of about half of federal land, which still amounts to an area nearly as large as South Carolina. The parcels are used for things like energy production, grazing, mining and recreation. Its world-famous national parks and national monuments would have stayed in federal hands.
While lawsuits typically start in federal district courts and eventually work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, disputes involving states can start at the nation’s highest court if the justices agree to hear them.
The federal Bureau of Land Management declined to comment.
Supreme Court turns back challenge to strict gun licensing law in Maryland
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday turned back a challenge to a strict gun licensing law in Maryland.
The high court declined to hear the case in a brief order handed down without elaboration, as is typical.
The challengers argued that the handgun law violates the Second Amendment by making it too hard for people to get guns. The law, passed after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, requires people to get safety training, submit fingerprints and pass a background check before buying a handgun. The state says those are reasonable safety measures.
The law was struck down by a three-judge appeals court panel after a landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights and said firearm laws must have strong roots in the country’s historic traditions. It was later revived, though, by the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority found that it does fit within historic firearm regulations.
The high court declined to hear the case in a brief order handed down without elaboration, as is typical.
The challengers argued that the handgun law violates the Second Amendment by making it too hard for people to get guns. The law, passed after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, requires people to get safety training, submit fingerprints and pass a background check before buying a handgun. The state says those are reasonable safety measures.
The law was struck down by a three-judge appeals court panel after a landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights and said firearm laws must have strong roots in the country’s historic traditions. It was later revived, though, by the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority found that it does fit within historic firearm regulations.
Supreme Court upholds a North Dakota state House district on an American Indian reservation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a North Dakota state House district on an American Indian reservation, rejecting a challenge by local Republican officials.
The Republicans’ lawsuit had previously been rejected by a three-judge court that found North Dakota lawmakers had good reason to create the district to give Native Americans a better chance to elect their candidate of choice, under the federal Voting Rights Act.
The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation had asked the justices to leave the district in place.
In a separate case, a federal appeals court is weighing a lower-court ruling that ordered a new joint North Dakota legislative district for two other tribes that had argued that the redistricting plan adopted by lawmakers in 2021 diluted their voting strength. The new district was used in the 2024 elections.
The Republicans’ lawsuit had previously been rejected by a three-judge court that found North Dakota lawmakers had good reason to create the district to give Native Americans a better chance to elect their candidate of choice, under the federal Voting Rights Act.
The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation had asked the justices to leave the district in place.
In a separate case, a federal appeals court is weighing a lower-court ruling that ordered a new joint North Dakota legislative district for two other tribes that had argued that the redistricting plan adopted by lawmakers in 2021 diluted their voting strength. The new district was used in the 2024 elections.
