HLLI director Ted Frank wrote an op-ed for City Journal, July 24, 2023:
A recent ruling by Judge William Carnes in Newport County Superior Court in Rhode Island raises important questions about judicial bias and the limits of judicial authority. In State v. Chevron, the Rhode Island attorney general alleges that dozens of oil and gas companies’ actions (from production to marketing and communications) bear responsibility for climate change; the suit seeks damages for rising sea levels, severe storms, and rising temperatures.
…
This case doesn’t belong in the courts. Newport County Superior Court is unlikely to arrive at the optimal policy that balances the need for fossil fuels in the economy with an attempt to reduce global carbon emissions. And in a broader context, the attorney general’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies reflects a trend of litigation improperly being used to advance policy agendas. Carbon emissions are an important public-policy issue, but addressing the problem requires comprehensive policy responses and international agreements that go beyond litigation. Such matters fall within the domain of the legislative and executive branches, which are better equipped to enact effective measures. Collaboration, informed policymaking, and international negotiation are key to tackling the complexities of carbon emissions. None of this can be achieved in court.
Judges can ensure the integrity and legitimacy of their decisions by staying within their constitutional bounds and focusing on interpreting the law rather than trying to shape public policy.