美國最高法院將裁定是否受理檀香山對化石燃料巨頭的氣候訴訟

美國最高法院即將於2024年1月10日舉行會議，以決定是否受理由殼牌（Shell）、埃克森美孚（ExxonMobil）、太陽石油（Sunoco）、英國石油（BP）、雪佛龍（Chevron）及其他主要化石燃料生產商提出的上訴。該上訴挑戰了夏威夷州最高法院的一項裁定，該裁定允許檀香山市和檀香山縣針對這些公司提出的氣候訴訟繼續進行。

The U.S. Supreme Court will meet on January 10, 2024 to decide whether to accept appeals filed by Shell, ExxonMobil, Sunoco, BP, Chevron and other major fossil fuel producers. The appeal challenges a Hawaii State Supreme Court ruling that allowed climate lawsuits filed against the companies by the City of Honolulu and the County of Honolulu to proceed.

檀香山的訴訟旨在讓這些化石燃料巨頭對當地因氣候變化而產生的成本負責。根據法庭文件，檀香山最初於2020年3月在州法院提起訴訟，並於2021年提交了修訂版的訴訟。此後，法院拒絕駁回案件或將其移至聯邦管轄範圍，最終於2023年10月由夏威夷最高法院裁定駁回化石燃料生產商的撤訴動議。

Honolulu's lawsuit seeks to hold these fossil fuel giants accountable for the local costs of climate change. Honolulu originally filed the lawsuit in state court in March 2020 and filed an amended version of the lawsuit in 2021, according to court documents. The court has since refused to dismiss the case or move it to federal jurisdiction, culminating in an October 2023 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court denying the fossil fuel producers' motion to dismiss.

全美範圍內的氣候訴訟浪潮

這項訴訟是自2015年以來針對化石燃料生產商提出的至少86起氣候訴訟之一。然而，最高法院的法官們將在美國總檢察長表示最高法院無管轄權的情況下，考慮是否審理此案。殼牌公司稱，這一立場與之前的意見相左。

Wave of climate lawsuits across America

The lawsuit is one of at least 86 climate lawsuits filed against fossil fuel producers since 2015. However, the Supreme Court justices will consider whether to hear the case if the U.S. Attorney General says the court does not have jurisdiction. Shell said this position was contrary to its previous views.

In March 2023, the Supreme Court formally filed the case. This was an appeal filed by Shell on behalf of other responding parties, arguing that the Hawaii State Supreme Court's ruling was wrong because the case should not be subject to federal law. In June, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. government to comment on its official position on the appeal. U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar submitted an opinion on December 10, 2023, indicating that the U.S. government believed that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to handle the case.

2023年3月，最高法院正式立案此案，這是殼牌代表其他應訴方提出的上訴，主張夏威夷州最高法院的裁定錯誤，因為該案件不應受聯邦法律的約束。6月，最高法院要求美國政府就上訴案的官方立場發表意見。美國總檢察長伊麗莎白·普里洛加（Elizabeth Prelogar）於2023年12月10日提交了意見書，表明美國政府認為最高法院無管轄權處理此案。

政府的意見與化石燃料生產商的回應

普里洛加的意見書中表示，即使最高法院具有管轄權，目前也無需進一步審查。她指出，化石燃料生產商未能證明其他上訴法院會得出不同結論。此外，關於聯邦法律或《清潔空氣法》是否應優先於該訴訟的憲法問題，尚未由審判法院或夏威夷最高法院處理。

普里洛加寫道：「這些未決的憲法問題表明，目前審查將可能導致聯邦問題的零碎處理。」她還指出，即使化石燃料生產商的理論認為《清潔空氣法》應禁止對州外行為提起的訴訟，政府的立場是針對州內欺騙性行為或污染的訴訟仍可繼續進行。

Government comments and responses from fossil fuel producers

Priloga's opinion said that even if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, no further review was needed at this time. She noted that fossil fuel producers failed to show that other appeals courts would have reached different conclusions. Additionally, the constitutional question of whether federal law or the Clean Air Act should preempt the lawsuit has not yet been addressed by the trial court or the Hawaii Supreme Court.

然而，殼牌及其他應訴方在2023年12月23日提交的答辯書中表示，普里洛加的意見書顯示政府對《清潔空氣法》優先權的立場發生了逆轉。答辯書寫道：「政府改變了其立場，即《清潔空氣法》禁止在這些氣候案件中尋求因跨境排放的影響而產生的損害賠償。這一逆轉加深了已被承認的衝突，只有最高法院能解決。」

“These unresolved constitutional issues indicate that the current review will likely result in a piecemeal approach to federal issues,” Priloga wrote. She also noted that even if fossil fuel producers’ theory is that the Clean Air Act should bar lawsuits for out-of-state conduct, the government’s position is that lawsuits for deceptive conduct or pollution within the state can still proceed.

However, Shell and other respondents said in a statement of defense filed on December 23, 2023 that Priloga's submission showed a reversal of the government's position on the priority of the Clean Air Act. "The administration has changed its position that the Clean Air Act prohibits seeking damages for the effects of cross-border emissions in these climate cases. This reversal deepens an already recognized conflict that only the Supreme Court can resolve," the defense reads.

應訴方還包括菲利普斯66公司（Phillips 66 Company）、康菲石油（ConocoPhillips）、Aloha石油、馬拉松石油（Marathon Petroleum）和伍德賽德能源夏威夷公司（Woodside Energy Hawaii）。他們認為，政府未能對其立場改變作出解釋，並且「不斷增加的州法院氣候訴訟案件……需要緊急審查。」

Respondents also include Phillips 66 Company, ConocoPhillips, Aloha Petroleum, Marathon Petroleum and Woodside Energy Hawaii. They argue that the administration has failed to explain its change of position and that "the growing number of state court climate lawsuits... requires urgent review."

下一步展望

What’s next?

最高法院的最終決定將影響氣候訴訟是否會繼續對化石燃料行業施加壓力，這對於確立州法院在全球排放相關案件中的作用具有深遠意義。1月10日的會議結果將成為氣候訴訟未來走向的重要指標。

The Supreme Court's final decision will influence whether climate litigation continues to pressure the fossil fuel industry and has far-reaching implications for establishing the role of state courts in emissions-related cases around the world. The outcome of the January 10 meeting will be an important indicator of the future direction of climate litigation.