SUNOCO LP 🌊🌊🌊V. 🌊🌊🌊 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe Fight Over Climate Legislation
This week, on January 10th, the United States Supreme Court will be hosting a status conference on Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu. This case may very well set the tone for climate change lawsuits and establish a precedent of their legal legitimacy.
Background
In March of 2020, the City and County of Honolulu filed an initial lawsuit against Sunoco LP. This lawsuit was amended in 2021 and alleges that Sunoco knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose the harmful effects of its products in order to maintain profits and that these actions resulted in damages from climate change. Despite this compelling legal question, this lawsuit has hardly gotten off the ground and yet finds itself on the doorstep of the Supreme Court. Issues of jurisdiction have been so fraught that the core issue itself has not yet been truly explored.
Tactical Choices
The tactical choices of both parties are a notable reflection of how climate change is approached in the legal world. In the initial lawsuit, Honolulu, the plaintiff, takes the avenue of advertising. Rather than resting their argument on the damage of pollution and climate change, the plaintiff focuses on the fact of false advertising. They assert that the defendant defrauded consumers by failing to disclose the harm of purchasing oil and gas products. This failure to disclose thus breaks the basic elements of a contract. This argument critically “does not seek to regulate emissions or curb energy production” per the Prelogar Brief. While it may seem evasive to frame the issue in terms of commerce and contracts, this tactic is aimed at grounding the plaintiff’s claims to stricter standards. Honolulu has greater rights to regulate contracts than it does emissions or energy, and if their argument named those aims directly the subject matter could wrest their rights away.
Sunoco, the defendant in the initial lawsuit and the petitioner for Supreme Court review attempts to advantage federal standards and the function of interstate commerce. Sunoco asserts that since their business is so expansive this is an interstate matter, and thus a federal matter. They argue that Federal statutes do not contain a “policy against timely and accurate disclosure of such harms” per the Prelogar Brief. So, if the petitioner can effectively claim that the lawsuit applies to interstate commerce and is thus a federal concern they can immediately nullify the underlying liabilities.
This is a well crafted analysis on the issue. It makes me wonder how many lawsuits such as this might pop up in the coming years. It seems like the United States government has no means to deal with situations such as this one, but why shouldn't Sunoco have a disclosure? What does it hurt to have one?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a well organized explanation of this case. I think next time if you could add more about the harmful components of Sunoco oil and gas, especially to a place as environmentally substantial as Honolulu, it would further explain why this certain case is so important. I find it quite terrifying that large corporations that have so much power over our limited resources on Earth could be withholding important information about their product. To know that Sunoco hides behind technicalities in federal law to justify worsening climate scenarios is not surprising but continues to be disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI love that you picked a specific topic to cover and really got your point across well. An environmental professor once said "if you are an environmentalist and you work for the big gas companies than you have sold your soul." And i think this is a perfect example as to why. Sunoco is being evasive and shady all for extra money or power.
ReplyDeleteA common trend I have been reading in these blogs is that money and profit tends to overshadow environmental impacts. This is unfortunate and big corporations or businesses need to be aware and held accountable for their environmental impacts.
ReplyDeleteI truly hope there's an increase in appetite for environmental justice going forward. I don't believe that Sunoco is the only one guilty of allegedly withholding crucial data. I don't recall where I heard, but I believe Exxon, decades ago, had done research on the consequences of emissions. They knew that CO2 emissions were harmful to the planet, yet hid the information. I would not be surprised if other corporations did similarly.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, I've heard of other success stories of people and organizations suing big polluters and winning their cases. Other environmental justice lawsuits have been put forth or proposed elsewhere, too. Let's hope the momentum can keep on going!
I thoroughly enjoyed the legal breakdown of this case. It is sad to see situations like this don’t gain more traction to paint these companies as the money-hungry giants they are. It is always heartbreaking to see businesses put income over the well-being of others.
ReplyDeleteThe Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu case and its possible ramifications for climate change lawsuits are thoroughly and carefully examined in your blog post. It's also instructive to read the background details you provide regarding the lawsuit and the strategies used by both parties. It's intriguing to observe how the case's outcome might be impacted by its framing as one centered on misleading advertising and failure to disclose rather than direct emissions regulation.
ReplyDeleteYour post is especially important because these lawsuits are popping up everywhere, more and more states and local jurisdictions are suing fossil fuel companies for the terrible damages they are experiencing from climate breakdown.
ReplyDelete