SUNOCO LP
🌊🌊🌊V.🌊🌊🌊
CITY OF HONOLULU
By: M.L.R.
Writ of Certiorari Denied:
Last week our blog reported on the case of Sunoco V. Honolulu City. In this case, Honolulu has attempted to sue Sunoco for breach of contract. Honolulu alleges that Sunoco knowingly neglected to inform gas/oil consumers about the harmful effects of climate change that such consumption caused. In reaction to this suit, Sunoco alleged that Honolulu does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case as it pertains to inter-state commerce which is a federally regulated activity. Sunoco petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (review of the earlier decision on jurisdiction). Many Climate activists feared that if certiorari were granted, climate lawsuits as a means for achieving justice would fall. Thankfully, on January 13th, 2025, the Supreme Court denied Sunoco’s petition.
Notes on Certiorari:
It is important to note that denial of certiorari does not mean that the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the lower court’s decision, it simply means that fewer than four judges deemed the circumstances necessary for higher review. In order for certiorari to be granted, four out of the nine judges must agree to hear the case. While it is not publicly stated which justices did or did not endorse certiorari it is curious to note that Justice Alito, known as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court, was not part of the consideration or the decision on the Honolulu case, per SCOTUS reportings. While no statements have been made to the effect of that recusal, nor are such explanations ever typically made, the financial disclosure forms that Alito filed in 2023 indicated that at that time Alito owned shares in three of the energy companies involved in the cases. Such observations are nothing more than notes on Alito’s financial history, not necessarily the reasons for his decisions, but it is protocol for any judge with a vested interest in the parties before them to remove themselves from the case.
Continuing Fight:
As was mentioned earlier, denial of certiorari does not equate to a done deal. This action simply closes the lawsuits pertaining to jurisdiction, meaning that Sunoco could still be held to stricter state laws rather than being evaluated as a federal concern with looser standards. However, jurisdiction is only the first step of a lawsuit. Quite literally it is generally one of the first counts in a complaint. There is still yet a battle to be had over whether or not Sunoco did or did not breach their contracts by failing to disclose the harms of oil and gas consumption, or if, even in the event of such breach, whether or not any damages occurred or damages necessitating compensation. This dogfight occurring from the very start indicates how heartily Sunoco is invested in winning this case.
Future Posting:
We will continue to monitor further developments in the Sunoco case. Additionally, the case of Port of Tacoma, et al., Petitioners v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance has been gaining traction as another climate case to be reported on.
 |
| Port of Tacoma |
Hey! That's an awesome blog post, I almost wish we had more graphics as the ones you chose were amazing! It's scary to think how much power one person can hold just by their job. You would think the government checks and balances system would make it right but unfortunately, it doesn't always. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note Justice Alito's potential conflict of interest and the broader impact this decision could have on climate lawsuits.What are the implications for future climate lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting. It's intriguing to see the progression of the case and how the parties defend their side. These are the aspects of climate change that we don't necessarily draw too much attention to but they are important for understanding how justice is being served for our planet and our wellbeing.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy how misinformed people are due to the people who choose not to inform others. I also think that this is a very suppressed side of climate change. Thank you for talking about this.
ReplyDeleteto be honest I am one of the people who had not heard of this before no one I know had talked about this and I didn't see this in the news so I just didn't know about this. my question is what way do you think we can inform more people about these topics.
DeleteHard to imagine that anything can go right these days when there is so much greed in the world. It is hard to watch the most powerful countries and people just make a mockery of our environment and people. Thank you for continuing this story so we can keep up on it.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be nice if the highest court in the land abided by a code of ethics- something that the common citizen is often held to in the workplace- but alas that feels like asking for too much these days. Hopefully the facts continue to reign as litigation continues for this case. This has potential to be groundbreaking in terms of how we can hold parties liable for the climate crisis they've caused!
ReplyDeleteI have not heard of this case and before this blog I have only ever heard about Justice Alito while driving in my car listening to the radio. This post was organized well and gave a good amount of information. Nice Work!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see a lawsuit in one of these blog posts, it really shows how people try to screw one another over, especially in a sacred place like Hawaii. People really don't understand what is going on and it's bigger than all of us.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting to hear about Sunoco after we have read about it in class. Such a big corporation that I'm sure is protected by several big lawyers getting their share of this massive company. This seems to be a very high profile case as both parties involved are representing such large groups. Interested to see where it goes.
ReplyDeleteI found this post to be very insightful on the actions by larger companies who are named large consumers of gas and oil and therefore contribute most to global greenhouse gas emissions. I find the lack of accountability from Sunoco alarming as it creates an effect of inaccurate emissions reporting, and I wonder what other large companies are getting away with this also. I am thankful that in this case, however, Sunoco's petition was denied.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the update! I am curious to see if any new common law precedents will come from this decision depending on whichever way it goes.
ReplyDeleteI am very intrigued to see how the rest of this case goes, and how Sunoco may continue to avoid accountability. I found the additional information included in the links useful and I appreciate the inclusion of another relevant case which I am looking forward to looking into.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the update on what is going on with this. I am interested in seeing where it goes from here. I do not know much about Sunoco, Honolulu, or the government system, so thank you for teaching me about it.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting update on Sunoco v. Honolulu. It's a relief to see the Supreme Court deny Sunoco's petition, keeping the door open for stronger state-level accountability. I'm curious what the next big hurdle for Honolulu is as the case moves forward.
ReplyDeleteIt good to see people fighting back against these huge oil companies that are destroying the world. People wanting justice and protecting their homeland is great to see. I also like how you built upon the blog you did last week.
ReplyDeleteReally great information, MLR! Your breakdown of the Sunoco v. Honolulu City case gave me a fresh perspective, especially on the legal impacts and corporate accountability around climate change. I’m curious—how likely do you think cases like this are to set more substantial legal precedents for protecting the environment in the future?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post and very informative! I did not know anything about Sunoco v. Honolulu before the post, but it is interesting to see and learn about the process of the legal side of climate-based lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteAs described in Fire Weather, these lawsuits may be a crucial way to start holding fossil fuel companies responsible - thus kill their insurance and slow development. Are you thinking of a career in law?
ReplyDelete