The Cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California, have attempted to use California courts to make what would effectively be national policy on carbon dioxide emissions. The cities have launched a suit against Chevron for injuries the company has inflicted on those cities due to climate change. A federal circuit court allowed the cities to sue in state court, rather than federal court, even though the issue at hand is ostensibly one of global climate change.
The amici brief states: “This case presents an issue of extraordinary importance to Amici States. Here the Cities of San Francisco and Oakland seek judicial resolution of one of the most complicated and contentious issues confronting policymakers today—global climate change. The Cities allege injuries they claim are caused by global climate change, which they in turn argue is caused by greenhouse gases emitted by countless entities round the world. Yet in this suit the Cities take aim at just a handful of companies: They contend these companies, by producing fossil fuels and promoting their use, have broken the law—but not law enacted by a legislature, promulgated by a government agency, or negotiated by a President. Rather, the law the Cities invoke is the common law: They claim the production and promotion of fossil fuels constitutes a ‘public nuisance’ such that courts may impose on these defendants all the costs of remedying the Cities’ alleged climate-change injuries. Federal law gives the defendants a right to have this common-law public nuisance claim heard by a federal court. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary conclusion contravenes this Court’s precedents and demands this Court’s intervention.”
