In a decision on February 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the Attorney General of New Jersey’s state tort claims against various energy companies seeking redress for the effects of climate change in Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp (N.J. Super. No. MER-L-001797-22).  Because the dispute concerned interstate and global air emissions, which implicate uniquely federal interests, the court concluded that the federal Constitutional structure requires that federal common law preempts these climate-change related tort claims.  

The Attorney General of New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs sued thirteen energy companies and an industry trade association alleging that the defendants engaged in a misinformation campaign and failed to warn consumers, the public, and decision-makers about the risk of their fossil fuel products.  The complaint asserted eight state causes of action, including failure to warn, negligence, trespass, public and private nuisance, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).  Plaintiffs contended that defendant’s deceptive actions caused an increase in greenhouse gas emissions which led to sea-level rise, extreme weather impacts, and other climate change related impacts on New Jersey residents.

The court relied on various federal and state court decisions across the country that have rejected the use of state tort law in the climate change context.  Citing American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), the court emphasized that the general scheme of the federal Constitution requires federal common law to govern any dispute involving interstate ambient air and water issues.  Plaintiffs argued that Congress displaced federal common law with respect to air emissions when it passed the Clean Air Act, thus allowing state law to govern this dispute.  However, the court focused on the fact that the Clean Air Act regulates only domestic and not foreign emissions. Therefore, federal common law governs disputes over global greenhouse gas emissions, an area that the Clean Air Act does not regulate.  Despite Plaintiffs’ artful pleading, the court determined that the complaint plainly concerned redress for the state’s injuries resulting from global climate change, which is a federal common law issue.

The Supreme Court of Hawaii’s recent decision in City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 537 P.3d 1173 (Haw. 2023), allowing a similar state climate change-related tort case to move forward, was unpersuasive to the New Jersey Superior Court because it failed to address the critical point that state law is not equipped to address issues requiring a unified federal standard, such as climate change.

This decision highlights the split among state courts as to the fate of state climate change-related tort cases.  New Jersey now joins Maryland and Delaware as the state courts who have granted energy companies’ motions to dismiss on federal preemption grounds, while Hawaii, Connecticut and Colorado have rejected such arguments and are allowing state climate change-related tort claims to move forward.  On January 13, 2025, the Supreme Court denied a petition from major energy companies seeking a determination on the federal preemption question, thus the fate of such cases remains in the hands of state courts for now.

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Energy, New Jersey, NJDEP, Toxic Torts