By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Michigan’s potential lawsuit against fossil fuel companies for climate change damages would be unconstitutional and obstructs federal efforts to regulate energy and the environment, a lawsuit filed by the federal government against the state argues.
USA v. Michigan was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District last Wednesday as a response to a lawsuit that has not yet been filed by the state.
Attorney General Dana Nessel last year selected three law firms to sue the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state for the role oil and gas companies have played in climate change.
President Donald Trump’s administration is arguing the lawsuit is barred by the U.S. Constitution and the federal Clean Air Act. It would also obstruct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate, the federal lawsuit says.
“By imposing retroactive liability for lawful conduct, Michigan would second-guess EPA’s regulatory choices and imposes penalties that Congress did not authorize,” the suit argues. “Michigan’s state law claims would further undermine federal objectives by increasing energy costs and disrupting the national energy market, contrary to the Clean Air Act’s integration with national energy policy. As noted in Executive Order 14156, insufficient energy production due to restrictive state policies threatens national security and economic prosperity. By targeting major fossil fuel businesses, many of which operate on federal lands or supply federal agencies, Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit would raise costs for federal operations and consumers nationwide, obstructing the Clean Air Act’s goal of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.”
Nessel blasted the suit in a statement, noting the state has not yet filed suit. She said if the administration or the oil and gas companies want to refute claims made by the state, they can respond directly to the lawsuit when it is filed.
“Donald Trump has made clear he will answer any and every beck and call from his big oil campaign donors, but this latest favor is perhaps the most surprising debasement of both the White House and DOJ yet,” Nessel said in a statement. “It stands to reason the prospective defendants in our to-be-filed complaint have ample resources to defend themselves in court without coopting the federal Department of Justice, though perhaps if they are desperate enough to request this unprecedented preemptive intervention, they are more concerned over our potential claims than they have led on.”
Nessel said because the claims are unknown to the administration, the lawsuit filed Wednesday is “at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable.”
“If the White House or big oil wish to challenge our claims, they can do so when our lawsuit is filed; they will not succeed in any attempt to preemptively bar our access to make our claims in the courts,” she said. “I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the president and his big oil donors so fear.”
The federal lawsuit further argues that if Michigan is able to pursue its claims, other states could file similar suits, leading to a “patchwork” of regulations “that undermine the national interest in readily available and affordable energy and the government’s ability to effectively administer coherent national environmental policy and regulation of global pollution.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council in a statement said the lawsuit was an effort by the federal government to deter states from taking action on climate change.
“This is the latest heavy-handed example of the Trump administration putting its thumb on the scale in favor of the fossil fuels industry. The cases run afoul of state authority that is guaranteed under the Constitution and multiple federal laws. States have rights, whether the Trump administration agrees with their policies or not,” Michael Wall, chief litigation officer at the NRDC, said in a statement. “Claiming an energy emergency does not eliminate the massive public health and economic impacts of the actual climate emergency, which is impacting communities across the United States right now. The Department of Justice should be suing the corporate polluters that are poisoning our communities rather than suing states trying to protect their own residents from polluters that are violating state law.”
Gongwer News Service
Michigan’s potential lawsuit against fossil fuel companies for climate change damages would be unconstitutional and obstructs federal efforts to regulate energy and the environment, a lawsuit filed by the federal government against the state argues.
USA v. Michigan was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District last Wednesday as a response to a lawsuit that has not yet been filed by the state.
Attorney General Dana Nessel last year selected three law firms to sue the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state for the role oil and gas companies have played in climate change.
President Donald Trump’s administration is arguing the lawsuit is barred by the U.S. Constitution and the federal Clean Air Act. It would also obstruct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate, the federal lawsuit says.
“By imposing retroactive liability for lawful conduct, Michigan would second-guess EPA’s regulatory choices and imposes penalties that Congress did not authorize,” the suit argues. “Michigan’s state law claims would further undermine federal objectives by increasing energy costs and disrupting the national energy market, contrary to the Clean Air Act’s integration with national energy policy. As noted in Executive Order 14156, insufficient energy production due to restrictive state policies threatens national security and economic prosperity. By targeting major fossil fuel businesses, many of which operate on federal lands or supply federal agencies, Michigan’s anticipated lawsuit would raise costs for federal operations and consumers nationwide, obstructing the Clean Air Act’s goal of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.”
Nessel blasted the suit in a statement, noting the state has not yet filed suit. She said if the administration or the oil and gas companies want to refute claims made by the state, they can respond directly to the lawsuit when it is filed.
“Donald Trump has made clear he will answer any and every beck and call from his big oil campaign donors, but this latest favor is perhaps the most surprising debasement of both the White House and DOJ yet,” Nessel said in a statement. “It stands to reason the prospective defendants in our to-be-filed complaint have ample resources to defend themselves in court without coopting the federal Department of Justice, though perhaps if they are desperate enough to request this unprecedented preemptive intervention, they are more concerned over our potential claims than they have led on.”
Nessel said because the claims are unknown to the administration, the lawsuit filed Wednesday is “at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable.”
“If the White House or big oil wish to challenge our claims, they can do so when our lawsuit is filed; they will not succeed in any attempt to preemptively bar our access to make our claims in the courts,” she said. “I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the president and his big oil donors so fear.”
The federal lawsuit further argues that if Michigan is able to pursue its claims, other states could file similar suits, leading to a “patchwork” of regulations “that undermine the national interest in readily available and affordable energy and the government’s ability to effectively administer coherent national environmental policy and regulation of global pollution.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council in a statement said the lawsuit was an effort by the federal government to deter states from taking action on climate change.
“This is the latest heavy-handed example of the Trump administration putting its thumb on the scale in favor of the fossil fuels industry. The cases run afoul of state authority that is guaranteed under the Constitution and multiple federal laws. States have rights, whether the Trump administration agrees with their policies or not,” Michael Wall, chief litigation officer at the NRDC, said in a statement. “Claiming an energy emergency does not eliminate the massive public health and economic impacts of the actual climate emergency, which is impacting communities across the United States right now. The Department of Justice should be suing the corporate polluters that are poisoning our communities rather than suing states trying to protect their own residents from polluters that are violating state law.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
