The movement of U.S. energy producers through court bankruptcy took another hit on Wednesday, while climate lawsuits in New Jersey were biased. [emphasis, links added]
The judge's opinion is the third ruling of this year (Follow Anne Arundel, Annapolis and New York City, and Baltimore in 2024) This makes climate plaintiffs and their claim to the priceless masters of energy producers-package.
Judge: The plaintiff's claim is unconstitutional and seizes it
The lawsuits in the denial of Garden State add to the growing legal evidence that the constitution’s federal structure does not allow these claims for climate change.
In the opinion of Judge Douglas H. Hurd, he agreed with the things the defendant and energy experts have been arguing: The plaintiff is trying to create federal law by bringing a series of cases in court.
Specifically, Judge Hurd agreed to the Energy Company and noted that these types of claims are unconstitutional:
“As the defendant said in the moving profile,”The federal system does not allow states to apply their laws to claims seeking injuries allegedly caused by interstate or global emissions. '” (key addition)
therefore, Judge Hurd admitted that even if they were attempting to understand the plaintiff’s claims in a favorable manner, they could not be heard in the state court:
“Although the plaintiff pleaded frankly in this case, the court found Plaintiff’s complaint, even in the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the harm of global climate change and seeking damages for such suspected injuries. ” (Added emphasis)
Finally, in his conclusion, the judge stipulates that Only federal law can manage interstate greenhouse gas emissions, so overall production and sales of fossil fuels can be managed:
“In summary, Only federal law can manage the plaintiff's interstate and international emission claims because of the “basic plan of the Constitution. '” (key addition)
Now, this logic has been responded to by a handful of state court judges, and the Supreme Court in 2011 AEP v Connecticut. As the losses increase, will this ruling become a nail in the coffin to convince other jurisdictions to abandon the lawsuit?
Reminder: Rockefeller always pulls the strings
New Jersey’s losses were particularly disappointing for Rockefeller and other billionaire-funded groups that have driven years of climate litigation in Garden State.
Recall that before the Attorney General filed a lawsuit The Rockefeller-backed Engo Climate Integrity Center (CCI) visited the state to provide public relations services to municipalities in a bid to convince them to join the climate lawsuit.
Starting in 2020, CCI began providing “a set of kits” for elected officials and campaigners in New Jersey. The group even offered to “ghost” the public officials and “act as an extra hand”:
“…There is absolutely no legal obligation. Since we are 501 C3, there is no commitment or legal sign “necessary”. Quite,We consider ourselves an extra set of hands to help public officials…” (Added emphasis)
Comments Since New Jersey’s sacking In a poorer comment, a CCI employee called his group “employees” [public officials] Hopefully they have climate accountability. “Although this strategy raises significant moral issues, efforts have proven to be ineffective.
Bottom line:Judge Heard's ruling strengthens growing legal evidence The lawsuit against U.S. energy producers are simply politically motivated attacks to limit Americans’ access to affordable, abundant and reliable energy.
He was fired several times in just a few weeks, The climate litigation campaign quickly revealed what it has been: a rash legal effort lacking any merit.
Read more in the climate of Eid
