In a significant development, the Supreme Court has requested input from the Biden administration regarding two cases involving the city of Honolulu's efforts to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for the impacts of climate change. The one-line order from the court invites the solicitor general to submit a brief on the appeals of a Hawaii Supreme Court decision, brought forth by the energy industry.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the consideration of the cases, likely due to his ownership of stock in ConocoPhillips, one of the companies named in the lawsuits. The legal battle initiated by Honolulu in Hawaii state court bears resemblance to similar cases filed against the nation's largest energy companies by state and local governments.

Honolulu claims that the oil and gas industry engaged in deception by misleading the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products and the resultant environmental impacts. The city asserts that the industry's actions have contributed to global climate change, leading to adverse effects such as flooding, erosion, and more frequent and intense extreme weather events. These changes have caused property damage and a decline in tax revenue due to decreased tourism.

A group of 15 energy companies requested the Supreme Court's review of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision which allowed Honolulu's lawsuit, along with its Board of Water Supply, to proceed. The suit was filed in March 2020, and Honolulu raised multiple claims under state law, including public nuisance and failure to warn the public about the risks associated with fossil fuel products.

The energy companies unsuccessfully sought to have the case transferred to federal court. Subsequently, a state trial court dismissed their attempts to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims under state law were not overridden by federal law and the Clean Air Act.

The oil and gas industry contends that greenhouse-gas emissions are the result of countless choices made over a long period, involving governments, companies, and individuals. While Honolulu seeks damages for the cumulative effect of worldwide emissions leading to global climate change, the industry argues that the regulation of interstate pollution is a federal matter governed by federal law.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately decided to allow the lawsuit to proceed. It determined that the Clean Air Act supersedes federal common law related to lawsuits seeking damages for interstate pollution. It also rejected the oil companies' argument that Honolulu aimed to regulate emissions through its lawsuit, stating that the city's intention was to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products without proper warning, alongside a sophisticated disinformation campaign.

In response, the oil companies turned to the Supreme Court, urging it to halt Honolulu's lawsuit. They claimed that state and local governments were attempting to control the nation's energy policies by holding energy companies accountable for global conduct, which conflicts with the priorities of the federal government.

Lawyers for Honolulu argued that the lawsuit seeks to hold the oil and gas industry liable under Hawaii law for deliberately concealing and misrepresenting the climate-change impacts of their fossil-fuel products. They affirmed that the lawsuit does not impede the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Supreme Court's request for the Biden administration's input marks a crucial step in this ongoing legal battle and highlights the broader concerns surrounding climate change litigation and federalism. The court's ultimate decision will have far-reaching implications for the energy industry and its legal obligations regarding climate change.

As both sides present their arguments, the nation waits to see how the Supreme Court will interpret the complex relationship between state and federal authority in addressing the impacts of climate change.