The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a move by Alabama and more than a dozen other states to sue five states over carbon- and climate-related claims.
The rejection prompted a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who said the refusal appears “suspect” and to be based on policy reasons. He urged the court to reconsider how to view disputes between states.
The case, Alabama v. California, involved Alabama and 18 other states filing a bill of complaint — which initiates a lawsuit between states before the high court — to sue California, New Jersey, Minnesota, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
They alleged that the defendant states use tort claims to dictate energy policy between states, crossing borders and jurisdictions.
They say the defendant states try to impose liability on energy companies for out-of-state conduct, which runs afoul of the separations of powers and the Commerce Clause.
Justice Thomas said in his dissent that Article III of the Constitution suggests that when a state is a party, the Supreme Court must have jurisdiction over the case.
“Given our ’virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given to us, our jurisdiction in this context would seem to be compulsory,” he wrote. “The Court’s reluctance to accept jurisdiction in cases between the States is also troubling because this Court is the only court that can hear such cases.”
“We should revisit this discretionary approach,” Justice Thomas said. “Our exclusive original jurisdiction over suits between States reflects a determination by the Framers and by Congress about the need ’to open and keep open the highest court of the nation’ for such suits, in recognition of the ’rank and dignity’ of the States.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Thomas’ dissent.
