Alabama, joined by 12 other Republican-led states, has initiated a federal lawsuit against five Democrat-run states, alleging that the latter are attempting to coerce them into implementing stringent climate-conscious policies that could jeopardize their residents’ access to affordable energy.
The lawsuit, filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, alleges that California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, the Democrat-led states named as defendants, are essentially compelling residents of politically opposed states to experience the consequences of their environmental policies and, as such, are dictating national energy policy.
“California, New Jersey, and the defendant states are attempting to formulate national energy policy through state laws,” declared Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a state official involved in the lawsuit. “If the Supreme Court does not intervene, they may succeed.”
“If the laws implemented by the defendant states achieve their intended impact, fossil fuel energy companies nationwide will either face substantial penalties or be compelled to modify their policies directly. Furthermore, these defendant states will influence the availability of inexpensive, accessible energy within our states,” he elaborated. “One state lacks the authority to govern policy within another state.”
When asked about criticisms that it might be premature to elevate such a case to the Supreme Court, Kobach maintained that this is an exceptional instance where it is warranted. He emphasized that the Supreme Court has consistently exercised jurisdiction over conflicts between states and that the “opposing interests” in this case are particularly pronounced.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who is spearheading the legal action, stated to Fox News Digital that he possesses the authority to directly petition the Supreme Court because it retains original jurisdiction over suits between states. He cited instances where one state has taken legal action against another and presented its case to the high court.
“When two sovereign entities assert claims against one another, it is the appropriate venue for those claims to be adjudicated,” he asserted.
Marshall emphasized that the core issue revolves around the defendant states developing climate policies that will have an undue impact on Alabama and its fellow plaintiff states. “I believe one of the most objectionable aspects is that they are using common law claims, along with statutory Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, as a means to implement climate policy,” he explained. “In general, the concern is how these policies affect the constituents of our individual states. The valid question becomes: why should we in Alabama be concerned with how California chooses to operate within its own state courts?”
“If California prevails, they will effectively gain the ability to accomplish two objectives. They will be able to impose a carbon tax because that is essentially what [legal] ‘damages’ represent in these cases,” Marshall stated. He expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would concur that energy and climate policy are federal matters and not within the purview of individual states to dictate in a manner that could affect others.
The legal complaint reads in part: “Defendant States seek a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry” … “In their perspective, a small gas station in rural Alabama could be held liable for damages to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas.”
The complaint references API v. Minnesota, a case filed against energy companies for alleged harm caused by their contributions to global warming, among other claims. It also cites a 1981 case brought against West Virginia by neighboring states who disputed a policy that required Mountaineer natural gas producers to meet local demand before exporting their valuable energy resource.
Kobach asserted that this ongoing multi-party lawsuit is one of the few eligible cases that should be adjudicated first and ultimately by the Supreme Court: “A relatively small number of cases can be directly brought to the Supreme Court because they involve complex disputes between one state and another or between groups of states,” Kobach explained, adding that the high court has occasionally declined to hear such cases.
When asked about the potential recourse for the plaintiff states if New Jersey, California, and the others are allowed to continue shaping policy with alleged broader implications than legally permissible, Kobach stated that Kansas, for instance, has limited options. “The secondary course of action would be [to] seek legislation in Congress, preempting what the defendant states have done, but that is a complex process,” he said. “It takes a long time, and it may come too late, depending on the outcome in these defendant states.”
Kobach emphasized that the current lawsuit is not the first of its kind. The Supreme Court previously upheld California’s sow housing law, which plaintiffs claimed led to an avoidable spike in the cost of bacon and other pork products outside of California.
Efforts to contact representatives from the defendant states in the case were unsuccessful. Charles Creitz is a reporter for Fox News Digital.
