A Montana state judge in Helena has ruled that a law preventing the state from taking greenhouse gas emissions into account during environmental reviews infringes upon the constitutional rights of 16 young plaintiffs who sued for action on climate change. The decision was handed down by Judge Kathy Seeley in the First Judicial District Court of Montana, marking a landmark victory for the plaintiffs. The lawsuit, championed by advocacy group Our Children’s Trust, hinged on Montana’s state constitutional guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment,” as invoked by the 16 youths.

The verdict, announced on Monday, has garnered attention from prominent media outlets such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Bloomberg Law, reflecting the far-reaching implications of this legal precedent. Montana stands as one of six states with explicit constitutional provisions safeguarding environmental rights, a fact previously reported by the ABA Journal.

The lawsuit’s impact was further emphasized by Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel and Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust. She celebrated the decision as a “sweeping win for our clients” and a pivotal moment, characterizing it as a “game-changer.” Notably, Olson emphasized the historical significance of the ruling, as it marked the first instance in U.S. legal history in which a court determined that governmental actions promoting fossil fuels and overlooking climate change could violate the constitutional rights of young individuals, placing them at undue risk.

See also: Illinois Lawyer Takes on Climate Change, Targeting Companies Allegedly Fueling the Crisis

Judge Seeley had previously acknowledged her limitations in directly mandating the state to devise a corrective plan. Nevertheless, she asserted her authority to grant declaratory relief in the matter, a legal distinction that offered a measure of vindication to the young plaintiffs and their cause.

Don’t miss out on top talent – post your job openings with BCG Attorney Search.

Our Children’s Trust, the advocacy group leading the charge, is concurrently pursuing climate change cases in four additional states beyond Montana. This concerted legal effort underscores the broader movement to address climate change through the judiciary. However, it is notable that most similar cases initiated by young individuals—amounting to at least 14—have been dismissed. This trend was highlighted in a report released in July by the United Nations Environment Program and the Sabin Center.

The state of Montana’s defense primarily rested on the argument that lawmakers rather than the judiciary should address the grievances brought forth by the youth plaintiffs. Additionally, the state contended that its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is minimal, further downplaying the need for legal intervention.

Busy schedule? No problem. Subscribe to JDJournal for bite-sized legal news updates that fit your on-the-go lifestyle.

Central to the legal dispute was the concept of a “MEPA limitation,” referring to a provision that bars the state from factoring in the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in its environmental reviews. This clause, entrenched within the Montana Environmental Policy Act, became the focal point of contention between the state and the young plaintiffs.

Anticipating an adverse outcome, the state of Montana is poised to lodge an appeal against the court’s ruling. This move sets the stage for a higher legal battle, which could potentially shape the landscape of environmental law and climate change mitigation efforts in the state and beyond. The legal outcome of this appeal could further define the balance between the judiciary and legislative branches in addressing critical environmental concerns.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Judge Rules Montana’s Neglect of Climate Change Violates Citizens’ Right to a Clean Environment first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Melissa “Missy” Sims, a small-town Illinois lawyer, has embarked on a meaningful mission targeting fossil fuel giants and their alleged role in fueling climate change. With the backing of Milberg law firm, Sims is representing 16 municipalities in Puerto Rico seeking damages for the devastating impact of Hurricane Maria and other storms. The lawsuit seeks class-action status and asserts that climate change is intensifying hurricanes, with the defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, and BP, being accused of misrepresenting the dangers of their carbon-based products.

The November 2022 lawsuit brought by Sims stands out for two key reasons, as the New York Times reported. Firstly, it is the first to claim that the fossil fuel companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by falsely marketing their products. Secondly, it is the first to seek damages for a specific weather event, highlighting the unprecedented impact of climate change-related disasters.

Puerto Rico, situated in the hurricane-prone “Hurricane Alley,” is considered analogous to an “eggshell plaintiff” in tort law due to its geographical location, making it particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Sims’ lawsuit describes the island as facing rising sea levels and warming waters with little defense or warning against the monstrous storms that struck in 2017.

The legal action contends that oil and gas companies established a “Global Climate Coalition” in 1989, which has since engaged in a sustained “marketing campaign of deception” regarding climate change. Alongside RICO allegations, the lawsuit cites other causes of action, including consumer fraud, antitrust violations, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, and product liability.

Ready to make a change in your legal career? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect job.

Notably, Royal Dutch Shell, one of the companies named in the lawsuit, expressed the view that courtrooms are not the appropriate venue to address climate change, advocating instead for smart policy from governments and collective action across all sectors.

At 54 years old, Sims emerges as an unexpected legal figure amidst the global grappling with the devastating impacts of climate change. Described as an observant Catholic from a small Midwest town, Sims’ unique background includes an affinity for posting on TikTok, where her dog has amassed a substantial following, a feat that has even outpaced some celebrities.

Sims’ journey into law began by assisting communities in prosecuting cases of pet owners failing to clean up after their pets, residents living in unregulated trailers, and landowners neglecting to maintain their properties. Her early successes paved the way for representing the Illinois community of DePue in a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil and others for polluting the land. The village eventually secured a nearly $1 million settlement. Subsequently, Sims targeted Shell and ConocoPhillips, alleging groundwater pollution in Roxana, Illinois, resulting in almost $5 million settlements.

Upon joining Milberg, Sims ventured to Puerto Rico to aid local governments in their opioid crisis lawsuits against companies. Witnessing the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Maria, she felt moved by what she describes as the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit, inspiring her to take legal action against the fossil fuel companies.

“I believe the Holy Spirit is my co-counsel,” Sims confided to the New York Times. “He’s never steered me wrong.”

In this unprecedented legal pursuit, Missy Sims’ passion and dedication have brought her from humble beginnings to the forefront of the battle against climate change, representing not only the affected communities in Puerto Rico but also a growing global concern for the future of our planet.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Illinois Lawyer Takes on Climate Change, Targeting Companies Allegedly Fueling the Crisis first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A highly anticipated climate trial is about to commence in Montana, with more than a dozen young plaintiffs facing off against the state government at Lewis and Clark County District Court. Led by the legal nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, the 16 young people filed a lawsuit against the Montana government in 2020, asserting that as the nation’s fifth-largest coal producer, the state should be held accountable for the degradation of homes and land caused by climate change.

This case holds significant weight and sets a powerful precedent, as it focuses on the constitutional right to a safe climate. Maya van Rossum, founder of the Green Amendment for the Generations national movement, emphasizes the significance of this case as the first to robustly pursue the right to a safe climate as a constitutionally protected entitlement.

The legal basis of the case lies in Montana’s unique legal language, which enshrines a healthy and safe environment in its constitution, alongside only two other states: Pennsylvania and New York. This affirmative human right forms the cornerstone of the Held v. Montana complaint and has the potential to pave the way for additional legal actions.

Martha Davis, a law professor at Northeastern University, points out that regardless of the trial’s outcome, it will strengthen advocates’ efforts to establish the right to sue under state environmental provisions. However, the Montana government has attempted to derail the trial through administrative measures, rendering the case supposedly unnecessary.

Find the legal job that fits your lifestyle and career goals with BCG Attorney Search.

Governor Greg Gianforte signed a repeal of the State Energy Policy in March, a move challenged by the plaintiffs, who argue that it degraded and depleted Montana’s environment, causing substantial harm to the youth plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights. The repeal coincided with modifications to Montana’s Energy Policy Act, leading the Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office to assert that the youths’ lawsuit has become moot.

To address this, Knudsen’s office filed a writ of supervisory control to the Montana Supreme Court on June 5, arguing that there are no relevant facts to find and no existing Montana laws or policies for the District Court to interpret or apply. However, the Montana Supreme Court denied the request, allowing the trial to proceed as scheduled.

During the trial, which is set to take place from June 12 to June 23 at the First Judicial District Court in Helena, Judge Kathy Seeley, the presiding judge, can only provide declaratory relief, rather than injunctive relief if the plaintiffs prevail. This means that a victory for the plaintiffs would result in a court statement affirming that Montana violated the constitution, but it would not necessarily mandate specific actions to address emissions.

The Montana youth case is part of a broader landscape of climate cases involving youth plaintiffs in the United States. One such case is Juliana v. US, a national lawsuit that has garnered significant attention. These cases leverage constitutional frameworks to push governments for climate action, drawing inspiration from similar cases brought by international litigants.

While climate rights cases are more challenging to bring successfully in the US legal system, state-based constitutional cases like Held v. Montana have made significant progress. State constitutions are more amenable to amendment compared to the federal constitution, which has facilitated the inclusion of provisions related to a healthy environment. Pennsylvania, New York, and Montana are the only states with explicit healthy environment provisions in their bill of rights. However, other states have similar provisions that could be utilized for rights-based environmental litigation.

This momentum is evident in Hawaii, where challengers achieved two victories this year based on constitutional language affirming the right to a clean and healthful environment. The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected a challenge from a biomass power plant developer in March, citing the right to a life-sustaining climate system. In April, another youth climate case filed by Our Children’s Trust was approved for a trial in September, becoming the second such case in US history.

The cases unfolding across states, including Montana, are part of a broader movement driven by youth and affected individuals demanding that governments take climate change more seriously and demonstrate their commitment to mitigation efforts. As these legal battles continue, they hold the potential to reshape the legal landscape and compel governments to prioritize environmental protection and climate action.

The post Montana Youth Case Puts Legal Right to a Safe Climate on Trial first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into a California unit of oil refiner PBF Energy Inc regarding an emissions release incident that occurred in November. According to Reuters’ report last year, PBF Energy’s Martinez refinery emitted a “powdery substance” which was later identified as spent catalysts used in the refining process on November 24 and 25. The refinery had failed to notify the county of the release, raising concerns about compliance with regulatory requirements.

In response to the investigation, a spokesperson from PBF Energy stated on Friday that the company is cooperating with all relevant agencies involved in the incident, including those conducting ongoing investigations. However, the spokesperson refrained from providing further comments on pending legal matters.

Despite a request for comment, the Department of Justice overseeing the FBI did not respond to Reuters’ inquiry.

PBF Energy, headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, acquired the Martinez refinery in 2020. Situated on an expansive 860-acre site, the refinery was subject to increased scrutiny after the incident.

Connect with qualified, experienced attorneys by submitting your job openings with BCG Attorney Search.

The Los Angeles Times previously reported that the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were surveying local residents as part of the investigation into the release of the spent catalysts.

Findings from a sample collected by Contra Costa Health Services last year revealed elevated levels of aluminum, barium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc, surpassing normal background levels for these metals. These findings indicate potential environmental implications and further emphasize the significance of the investigation.

County health officials have stated that the Contra Costa District Attorney is pursuing legal action against the refinery for its failure to promptly notify the county of the release.

PBF Energy conducted a thorough investigation to identify appropriate corrective actions in response to the incident. The company’s spokesperson affirmed their commitment to implementing these measures; however, specific details regarding the corrective actions were not disclosed.

The U.S. Department of Justice investigation highlights the significance of environmental compliance and the enforcement of regulations in the oil refining industry. Emissions releases, such as the one under scrutiny, can have detrimental effects on air quality and public health. Consequently, it is crucial for refineries to adhere to rigorous standards and promptly report any incidents to the appropriate authorities.

As the investigation progresses, it remains to be seen what legal ramifications PBF Energy may face as a result of the emissions release and the failure to notify the county in a timely manner. The involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice underscores the seriousness of the matter and suggests potential consequences for the refinery.

Ensuring the safety of communities and protecting the environment are key priorities that must be upheld by all industries, particularly those involved in extracting, refining, and distributing fossil fuels. Stricter regulations and stringent enforcement are necessary to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact and to mitigate any potential harm caused by industrial activities.

As the legal proceedings unfold, it is hoped that this investigation will shed light on the incident, encourage transparency, and serve as a reminder of the importance of environmental stewardship in the oil refining sector. The findings and subsequent actions taken as a result of this investigation may set a precedent for future cases and potentially contribute to the development of more robust regulations to safeguard public health and the environment.

The post U.S. Justice Department Investigates California Refinery for Emissions, Raises Environmental Concerns first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a major move towards combatting climate change and decarbonizing the American economy, the Biden administration has revealed a sweeping plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s power industry. This initiative marks one of the most significant steps taken to date in the administration’s efforts to address global warming.

At the heart of the proposal is the aim to limit the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by power plants, which currently account for over a quarter of the United States’ total emissions. This would require the power industry to embark on a multi-year process of either investing billions of dollars in new equipment or phasing out operations altogether.

While environmental groups and scientists applaud these measures as essential for curbing global warming, states with a significant reliance on fossil fuel production argue that they represent government overreach and pose a potential threat to the stability of the electric grid.

The proposal sets stringent standards that would incentivize power companies to adopt carbon capture technology, effectively capturing CO2 emissions from a plant’s smokestacks before they are released into the atmosphere. Alternatively, power plants could use hydrogen—a fuel with ultra-low emissions—as an alternative energy source.

Join our community of successful legal professionals – sign up for LawCrossing today.

According to projections from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the plan would reduce approximately 617 million tonnes of carbon emissions from coal and new gas plants between 2028 and 2042. This reduction is equivalent to removing the annual emissions produced by 137 million passenger vehicles.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan emphasized the reliance on proven technologies to limit carbon pollution and capitalize on the ongoing momentum within the power sector to transition towards a cleaner future. Regan is scheduled to provide further details regarding the proposal in a speech at the University of Maryland later today.

White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi assured reporters that the proposal is fully aligned with President Biden’s ambitious goal of achieving net-zero power sector emissions by 2035. Zaidi emphasized that the rule’s provisions align with this objective, highlighting the administration’s commitment to driving significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The unveiling of this comprehensive plan represents a pivotal moment in the fight against climate change. By targeting power plant emissions, the Biden administration acknowledges the power industry’s crucial role in achieving significant carbon reductions. This proposal aligns with global climate objectives and sets a precedent for other countries and industries to prioritize sustainability and emissions reduction efforts.

As the proposal progresses, stakeholders from various sectors will closely monitor its implementation and impacts. The plan’s successful execution could significantly contribute to the United States’ ability to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement and enhance its leadership in global climate action.

The Biden administration’s proposal to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is a groundbreaking step towards combating climate change and achieving a more sustainable future. With ambitious targets, a focus on proven technologies, and alignment with President Biden’s net-zero emissions goal, this plan holds the potential to drive substantial progress in reducing carbon emissions from the power industry. As the world grapples with the urgent need to address climate change, this initiative sets a positive example and sends a strong message about the United States’ commitment to environmental stewardship and global cooperation.

The post Joe Biden’s Administration Proposes Stringent Measures to Reduce Carbon Emissions from Power Plants first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a law in Berkeley, California, that prohibited the installation of natural gas piping in newly constructed buildings. The law was enacted in 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the California Restaurant Association brought suit against the City of Berkeley, arguing that the law was preempted by Congress’s Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).

The City of Berkeley argued that the EPCA only preempts regulations imposing standards on the design and manufacturing of appliances, not those that impact the distribution and availability of natural gas. The city contended that because its ordinance impacted the distribution and availability of natural gas, rather than imposing standards on the design and manufacturing of appliances, it was not preempted by the EPCA.

The court ruled in favor of the California Restaurant Association, stating that the EPCA “expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances,” including those requiring the prohibited natural gas hookups by the Berkeley ordinance. The court also stated that the “circuitous route” the City of Berkeley took in its law created the same result as Congress’s law, which was to regulate natural gas use. Rather than prohibiting the use of natural gas appliances in new buildings, the law prohibited the installation of natural gas hookups so that appliances needing natural gas would be rendered useless.

The court ultimately struck down the ordinance because it “cuts to the heart of what Congress sought to prevent – state and local manipulation of building codes for new construction to regulate the natural gas consumption of covered products.”

Get noticed by top law firms and sign up for LawCrossing now.

The decision has significant implications for California’s energy policies and the future of energy regulation in the state. Many cities and counties in California have adopted or are considering similar ordinances to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This decision could potentially impact those efforts.

The California Restaurant Association praised the decision, stating it would help protect restaurants from unnecessary costs and disruptions. The association argued that the Berkeley law would have required restaurants to switch to electric appliances, which are more expensive and less efficient than natural gas appliances.

However, supporters of the Berkeley law criticized the decision, arguing that it would undermine efforts to combat climate change. The Natural Resources Defense Council stated that the decision was “a blow to the fight against climate change” and would “undermine local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The court’s decision highlights the tension between state and local efforts to combat climate change and federal preemption of those efforts. While the EPCA preempts state and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, it does not address the distribution and availability of natural gas. This creates ambiguity and uncertainty for state and local policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As California and other states continue to grapple with the impacts of climate change, the role of federal preemption in energy regulation will likely remain a contentious issue. The court’s decision in this case demonstrates the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to energy policy that balances federal, state, and local interests.

The post Federal Appeals Court Invalidates California’s Natural Gas Regulation Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Biden administration has introduced two initiatives to reduce passenger and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new rule to target vehicle greenhouse gas emissions from model years 2027 to 2032. The proposed rule applies to vehicle manufacturers and importers, aiming to protect public health, reduce consumer costs through lower fuel usage, and position the US as a leader in transitioning to alternative fuel vehicles.

Burning fossil fuels like oil produces carbon dioxide, which causes the planet to warm over time, leading to environmental concerns. The EPA estimates that the proposed rule could avoid ten billion tons of CO2 emissions over 30 years. This is almost double the total emissions of the US in 2020. Additionally, the EPA predicts that 67% of sedans, crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks could be electric if the proposed rule is finalized.

The Biden administration highlights American innovation in its effort to secure US leadership in the global race to a cleaner transportation future. Failure to do so would allow competitors like China to out-compete the US for jobs and investments that build this future.

Interested parties can make public comments on the proposed rule during a virtual hearing on May 9 and 10. They can testify or submit written comments to voice their opinions.

Don’t waste time scrolling through job postings. BCG Attorney Search has the best legal jobs in your area.

The announcement follows the lawsuit that environmental groups have recently filed against the EPA. The groups argue that the EPA’s water pollution guidelines for industrial facilities are not strict enough.

Reducing vehicle emissions is crucial to achieving the Biden administration’s climate goals. Transportation is the US’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 28% of total emissions. The initiatives by the Biden administration aim to reduce these emissions and mitigate climate change.

In addition to these initiatives, the Biden administration has taken other steps to reduce emissions. In March 2021, the administration announced a $174 billion plan to boost electric vehicles and charging stations, which includes tax credits and grants for automakers and charging stations. The plan also aims to electrify the federal government’s vehicle fleet, which would significantly impact reducing emissions.

Furthermore, the Biden administration has rejoined the Paris Agreement, a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change. The Paris Agreement sets targets for each country to reduce emissions, with the goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The initiatives and steps taken by the Biden administration reflect a growing global consensus on the need to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change. The US has the opportunity to lead in the transition to a cleaner transportation future, which would benefit the environment and create new jobs and investments.

The post Biden Administration Takes Major Step to Reduce US Vehicle Emissions first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction that blocked Executive Order 13990, which re-established an interagency working group to calculate the “social costs of greenhouse gases” for consideration by federal agencies during policymaking. The order was challenged by a group of Republican-led states, including Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. However, the court concluded that the states did not have standing to challenge the order because their injuries flow from “potential future regulations.”

In the opinion of Judge Jacques Wiener Jr., the court noted that the order does not require any federal action, and the alleged harms from the order “rely on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities.” As per legal requirements, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered an injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. However, in this case, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet this burden because the injury must be “actual or imminent.”

The states sued the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, asserting that the order was procedurally invalid, arbitrary, and inconsistent. The court agreed with the states and issued a preliminary injunction blocking agencies from relying on any work product from the working group.

The Biden administration has been facing criticism from environmental activists over the approval of the Willow Project. The $8 billion oil development project proposed by ConocoPhillips in the Alaskan Arctic was approved in March, and several challenges and lawsuits have been filed against the decision.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

The decision by the appeals court is seen as a significant victory for the Biden administration’s climate change policies. The administration has been actively working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change. The order in question was a crucial component of this strategy and aimed to ensure that the federal government considers the social costs of greenhouse gases while making policy decisions.

However, the court’s decision will likely face criticism from the plaintiffs and opponents of the Biden administration’s climate change policies. The ruling could also impact future legal challenges against the administration’s environmental policies, as the court has set a high bar for demonstrating standing in such cases.

Overall, the decision highlights the legal complexities of the government’s efforts to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Biden administration will likely continue to face legal challenges and opposition from various quarters as it seeks to implement its climate change policies.

The post US Federal Appeals Court Upholds Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Guidelines for Federal Agencies first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Biden administration has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a petition by ExxonMobil Corp and Suncor Energy Inc. to move a climate change lawsuit filed by several Colorado municipalities to federal court. The administration argued that the case alleges the companies exacerbated climate change belongs in state court, which is generally more favorable to the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, filed by the municipalities in Colorado state court, accuses ExxonMobil and Suncor of concealing and misrepresenting the dangers of burning fossil fuels. The companies have denied the allegations and argued that the case raises federal questions, despite the municipalities only raising state law claims.

The case is one of roughly two dozen lawsuits filed by states and municipalities against major oil companies, including Honolulu, Baltimore, and the states of Rhode Island and Delaware, alleging that they contributed to climate change. The venue question has been a critical point of contention in these cases, with plaintiffs preferring state courts, which are more likely to rule in their favor. At the same time, defendants argue that federal courts have jurisdiction over the cases.

In February 2022, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Colorado lawsuit should be heard in state court, and the Biden administration has urged the Supreme Court to uphold that ruling. The appeals court concluded that no grounds cited by the companies to change the venue supported giving federal courts jurisdiction.

Submit your job openings with BCG Attorney Search and start building your dream team.

The Colorado lawsuit is just one of many recent cases filed by states and municipalities against major oil companies. In addition to alleging that the companies contributed to climate change, the lawsuits also seek to hold them accountable for the costs associated with adapting to a changing climate, such as rising sea levels and more severe weather events.

The oil companies have vigorously defended themselves against the lawsuits, arguing that the cases are without merit and that they are being unfairly targeted. They have also questioned whether the courts are appropriate for addressing climate change, arguing that the issue is better left to the political process.

The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of the fossil fuel industry and efforts to address climate change. If courts ultimately hold oil companies responsible for the costs associated with climate change, it could lead to significant financial damages and force the companies to change their business practices.

In addition to the legal challenges, major oil companies face increasing pressure from activists, investors, and governments to reduce their carbon footprint and shift towards cleaner energy sources. Many companies have announced plans to invest in renewable energy and reduce emissions. Still, critics argue that these efforts are insufficient to address the scale of the climate crisis.

The post Biden Administration Takes on Big Oil: Pushes for State Courts to Handle Climate Cases first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Law Students for Climate Accountability, a group of U.S. law students critical of law firms that represent fossil fuel clients, has now set their sights on law schools that send a high proportion of graduates into the service of the fossil fuel industry. In a recent report, the group highlighted law schools with the most graduates working for energy industry clients at law firms. It called on these schools to steer fewer students into high-paid law and lobbying jobs serving fossil fuel companies. Instead, it boosted financial aid and assistance for students pursuing alternative careers.

The report emphasized that the careers their graduates go on to perform are the most influential effect law schools have on the climate crisis. It said that the top 20 law schools ranked by U.S. News & World Report produce nearly half of the fossil fuel lawyers in the United States. The University of Texas School of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law, and Yale Law School were identified as the schools with the highest proportion of alumni working on fossil fuel matters.

A spokesperson from the University of Texas declined to comment on the report, while representatives of Virginia and Yale did not immediately respond to requests for comment. According to the report, top-ranked law schools are structured as “pipelines” into large corporate law firms. The high law school debt also drives students into large firms, where starting pay hovers around $200,000. Law Students for Climate Accountability suggests that this structure and the financial pressure on students result in a disproportionate number of graduates ending up in the fossil fuel industry.

Law Students for Climate Accountability was formed in 2020 by Yale and Harvard University students, urging law students to boycott jobs at law firms that represent fossil fuel clients. The group produces an annual scorecard detailing the law firms it says have done the most work for fossil fuel clients. Focusing on law schools is a new tactic for the group, though co-founder Tim Hirschel-Burns said they plan to keep up the pressure on law firms.

Take control of your legal career and submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.

“We realize that law firms operate in a broader ecosystem, and law schools play a significant role in creating pressures that push students towards careers at fossil fuel-friendly law firms,” he said.

Law Students for Climate Accountability hopes its report will encourage law schools to take more significant steps to address the climate crisis. The group believes that law schools are responsible for preparing their students to tackle the pressing legal and policy challenges related to climate change. By reducing the number of students entering the fossil fuel industry and providing more support for alternative careers, law schools can help produce a new generation of lawyers committed to protecting the planet.

The post Law Schools Become Energy Industry Pipelines: Climate Group Sounds the Alarm first appeared on JDJournal Blog.