JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, along with 18 other states, has filed a motion for leave to file a lawsuit against California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island at the United States Supreme Court, alleging the states' policies are threatening the energy sector.
The motion for leave aims to stop these states' policies.
The motion argues that these states are placing excessive pressure on major energy companies due to an alleged climate crisis, demanding billions in damages.
Bailey argues that the penalties and remedies proposed by these states would negatively impact energy and fuel production nationwide and raise constitutional issues with their tactics, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to address the multi-state lawsuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether to hear a lawsuit. The lawsuit claims that traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal are crucial for American prosperity and are being unfairly targeted by the five states in the lawsuit.
Bailey also emphasizes in the lawsuit that the issue is critical due to the principle of federalism, which ensures that no state has more power than another. He is joined in the lawsuit by Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Bailey said he will always fight to put Missouri consumers first, which includes protecting Missouri energy when it comes under attack by other states.
"California and its radical counterparts are working to upend our economy with their unconstitutional climate agenda," Bailey said in a provided statement. "My office will not allow a state with zero respect for the rule of law to dictate how Missourians live their lives."
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called the litigation filed by California and the four other states a wasteful and brazen attempt to hobble energy policies.
"The energy industry is key to a thriving Oklahoma and nation," Drummond said in a provided statement. "No single state – or even five – should be allowed to dictate what is right for another state. I will always defend what is right for Oklahomans."
The attorneys general contend that the defendant states are attempting to control the future of the American energy industry through state tort actions, aiming to impose severe liabilities and remedies on energy companies via state law in state courts.
These defendant states seek substantial penalties and relief based on the argument that energy companies contribute to a global climate crisis, thus extending their regulatory reach beyond their borders. Their strategy threatens affordable energy access and challenges the principles of federalism and state sovereignty, the plaintiff states contend.
Historically, when states have tried to control interstate energy policy, the U.S. Supreme Court has intervened, as seen in cases like Pennsylvania v. West Virginia and Maryland v. Louisiana, the attorneys general state in their motion.
The attorneys general allege in the motion that the actions of the defendant states are seen as unconstitutional because they exceed state authority, disrupt federal balance and violate the Commerce Clause by trying to regulate beyond their jurisdictions.
The plaintiff states argue that such regulation should be managed at the federal level to avoid chaos and confrontation between states.
The states request the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the defendant states from imposing such liabilities and to maintain federal oversight over interstate emissions issues.