Democratic Party policies were soundly rejected by voters last November, so activists are turning to courts at the state, federal, and international levels to impose costly and painful climate change policies on consumers. But there are signs that common sense may prevail.
A federal court in Montana threw out a case last week that was funded by an activist group called Our Children’s Trust, holding that judges are ill equipped to dictate energy policy for the federal government.
“Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies and — ultimately — this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken,” wrote Dana Christensen, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. “In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent.”
MORE EVIDENCE MARIJUANA LIBERALIZATION IS A MISTAKE
The 22 named plaintiffs, who are all children recruited by Our Children’s Trust, had challenged three executive orders issued by President Donald Trump on his first day in office, including “Unleashing American Energy,” “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.” These would together have put one federal judge in charge of a dozen federal agencies and thousands of policy decisions, such as permit approvals, regulation promulgation, and enforcement actions. As the opinion noted, the plaintiffs were essentially asking one judge to overturn last November’s election.
Climate activists have had more luck using state nuisance law to further their climate policy goals. Colorado’s Supreme Court recently held that Boulder County could proceed with its suit against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil, claiming that the energy companies’ alleged “misinformation” about climate change contributed to alleged climate change harms, including property damage and increased wildfire risks.
The energy companies have appealed Colorado’s Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts all state law claims relating to air pollution. The Supreme Court should announce that it will hear the case soon.
The Democratic Party’s retreat from democracy into courtrooms on climate change is not surprising, considering how unpopular its policies are among voters. A 2024 YouGov poll found that 37% of voters said the cost of energy was most important to them, and another 36% chose availability of power, but only 19% prioritized lowering carbon emissions. The poll found that while lowering prices was the top concern for voters, climate change was 15th, beating only global trade, drug addiction, and racial issues.
Voters simply do not care about climate change except to the extent that the Democratic Party’s preferred solutions raise energy costs, which a lead lawyer for the Boulder litigation admitted was their goal.
Environmental Integrity Project’s David Bookbinder recently told the Federalist Society, “Essentially, the tort liability is an indirect carbon tax. You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable, the oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense, it is the most efficient way — the people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”
The problem for Democrats is that the people who use oil company products — modern life would be radically different without them — also vote, and they don’t want to pay higher prices for anything, especially climate policies that would have no effect on global temperatures.
TRUMP’S RIGHTEOUS FIGHT AGAINST A UN CARBON TAX
In the likely event that the Supreme Court does take the Boulder case, and it rules against the plaintiffs, environmentalists plan to try international courts. Our Children’s Trust plans to appeal its loss in federal court to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where it will argue that the United States has violated international law by denying children the power to dictate federal energy policy. Whatever luck these groups have on the international stage, good luck getting those judgments enforced in the U.S.
Courtrooms are no place to rewrite national energy policy. Voters have already rendered their verdict on costly climate mandates, and no amount of costly and casuistical litigation can reverse it. When activists fail to persuade the public, they try to govern from the bench. The Supreme Court should reaffirm the principles of representative government by taking up the Boulder case and firmly rejecting the Democratic Party’s latest attempt to regulate by lawsuit.
