Supreme Court will consider Big Oil’s appeal fighting Baltimore climate change lawsuit

The Supreme Court said Friday it will review oil majors’ appeal over a case brought by Baltimore seeking billions to compensate for adapting to climate change effects.

The appeal, led by BP, is attempting to move Baltimore’s lawsuit from state court to federal court, which the companies see as a more favorable venue. What the Supreme Court decides on the Baltimore case could have far-reaching implications for the rapidly growing number of lawsuits against Big Oil, which now total nearly two dozen brought by cities, counties, and several state attorneys general.

In three separate instances, federal appeals courts have already slapped down oil companies’ attempts to move the lawsuits to federal court. That includes the Baltimore case, as well as similar cases brought by California cities and counties and by Colorado cities and counties.

Environmentalists have said the back-to-back losses for the oil companies suggest at least one of the cases will make it to trial.

The Supreme Court, however, could throw a wrench in that, especially with a changing court dynamic following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. It’s not clear, however, whether President Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, would be confirmed to the court before the justices consider the oil companies’ appeal.

Considering the appeal offers the Supreme Court the chance to “affirm three unanimous appeals court rulings and establish a nationwide precedent for climate lawsuits against Big Oil,” said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, in a statement.

Industry groups, however, are taking a different tack.

“There is no doubt the recent increase in filings in new jurisdictions likely added urgency to this appeal in the mind of the Supreme Court,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, a project of the National Association of Manufacturers. “At the end of the day, we are confident the Court will once again find that climate change requires a comprehensive response from policymakers, not a liability ruling from state or federal courts.”

Related Content