Court rebuffs environmentalists’ attempts to dictate national global warming policy
A federal court in D.C. just threw out a case in which extreme environmentalists tried to force the United States to take immediate steps to curb carbon dioxide emissions to permanently reverse global warming. Fearing the federal government would not adequately defend the lawsuit, PLF successfully intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of several California small businesses and their trade associations. PLF then filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit. The court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice. The environmentalists will not be able to refile the case in federal court.
The case, Alec L. v. Jackson, was part of a concerted effort by environmentalists seeking to force the federal government and every state government in the nation to reverse global warming by controlling carbon dioxide emissions under a so-called “public trust” theory. Several months ago, PLF was successful in stopping the environmentalists from forcing the State of California to adopt a similar “public trust” approach to control carbon dioxide emissions. On the eve of the hearing scheduled in the California case, Blades v. California, the environmentalists voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit.
Litigation can make for strange bedfellows. PLF was forced to come to the rescue of President Obama and Governor Brown. Given their track records of aggressively regulating carbon dioxide emissions nationwide and in California, we believed those politicians would not vigorously defend against the lawsuits. While we may not share the bed with them again, we are pleased about the the district court’s decision today.
Update: News coverage of the ruling.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›