Alabama and 11 other Republican-led states have filed a lawsuit against five Democrat-run states, alleging that the latter are attempting to coerce the former into conforming to stringent climate-conscious policies that threaten their residents' access to inexpensive energy.
Alabama is leading a coalition of 12 Republican-led states in a federal lawsuit against five Democrat-run states, alleging that the latter are seeking to compel the former to adhere to strict climate-conscious policies that could jeopardize their residents' access to affordable energy.
The filing was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, with the plaintiffs asserting that California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are effectively compelling citizens of ideologically opposed states to endure the consequences of their restrictions and, as a result, influencing national energy policy.
"California, New Jersey, and the defendant states are attempting to establish a national energy policy through state laws," stated Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "And if the Supreme Court does not intervene, they may be successful."
"If the defendant states' laws have their intended impact, fossil fuel energy businesses throughout the country will either incur significant damages or will be required to implement policy modifications directly. Additionally, those defendant states will affect the availability of inexpensive, affordable energy in our states," he stated. "One state lacks the authority to dictate policy in another."
Responding to criticism that immediately escalating such a case to the Supreme Court may be premature, Kobach argued that this is an uncommon scenario in which it is warranted. He emphasized that the high court has historically had jurisdiction over interstate disputes and that the "adversarial interests" in this filing are especially clear.
Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General and the case's lead attorney, informed Fox News Digital that he has the authority to bring the complaint directly to the Supreme Court due to its original jurisdiction over state activities. He cited other instances in which one state takes legal action against another and presents its case to the Supreme Court.
"When two sovereigns have claims against one another, that is the appropriate setting for those claims to be adjudicated," he explained.
Marshall emphasized that the fundamental issue is that the defendant states are implementing climate policies that will disproportionately harm Alabama and its fellow plaintiff states.
"I believe one of the most objectionable aspects is that they are employing common law claims, as well as the statutory Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, as a means of enacting climate policy," he remarked.
"I believe the overarching concern is how this impacts the citizens of our respective states. The legitimate inquiry is: why should Alabama care about how California operates its state courts?"
"Well, if California wins, they will essentially be able to accomplish two things. They will be able to impose a carbon tax because that is what [legal] 'damages' truly represent in these cases," Marshall explained.
He expressed hope that the Supreme Court will acknowledge that energy and climate policy are federal issues rather than state matters that could have ramifications for others.
The legal complaint states, in part: "Defendant States seek a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry"... "In their perspective, a small gas station in rural Alabama may owe damages to the people of Minnesota merely for selling a gallon of gasoline."
The complaint cited API v. Minnesota, a case filed against energy firms for alleged harm caused by their contributions to global warming, among other charges.
It also made reference to a 1981 case filed against West Virginia by neighboring states who objected to a policy requiring Mountaineer natural gas producers to fulfill local needs prior to exporting their valuable energy resource.
Kobach emphasized that this ongoing multiparty lawsuit is one of the few eligible cases that should be heard first and ultimately by the Supreme Court.
"A relatively limited number of cases can be filed directly with the Supreme Court because they are complex and involve disputes between one state and another or between one group of states and another group of states," Kobach explained, adding that the high bench has occasionally declined to hear such cases.
When asked about the plaintiff states' potential remedies if New Jersey, California, and the others are permitted to continue crafting policy with allegedly broader implications than statutorily permitted, Kobach stated that Kansas, for example, has limited recourse.
"The second option would be to pursue legislation in Congress that would override what the defendant states have done, but that is a difficult process," he explained.
"It takes a long time, and it may come too late, depending on what unfolds in these defendant states."
According to Kobach, the current lawsuit is not the first of its kind. The Supreme Court previously upheld California's sow housing law, which the plaintiffs claimed resulted in an avoidable increase in the cost of bacon and other pork products outside of California.
Attempts to reach representatives for the defendant states in the case were unsuccessful.
