The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit from 19 Republican-led states seeking to block climate change lawsuits filed against the oil and gas industry by Democratic-led states.

The justices declined to hear the unusual Republican effort to challenge Democratic states for using their own courts to sue fossil fuel companies over allegations of misleading the public about the environmental risks of their products.

Why It Matters

While the Supreme Court typically handles appeals, the Constitution allows it to hear original lawsuits between states.

What To Know

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing the court lacks discretion to reject the case at this stage, though his dissent did not address the lawsuit’s merits.

Led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, the Republican complaint claimed that Democratic states are attempting to dictate national energy policy, which could lead to increased energy costs nationwide.

Newsweek called Marshall’s office on Monday morning for comment.

The Supreme Court has also declined to intervene in separate appeals from energy companies seeking to challenge these lawsuits.

The lawsuits, filed by dozens of state and local governments, accuse fossil fuel companies of concealing the true impact of their products on climate change, citing damages from extreme weather events, wildfires, and rising sea levels. The Republican-led legal action specifically targeted lawsuits from California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

Republicans argue that only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate gas emissions and that individual states lack the power to apply their own laws to global environmental issues.

In an emailed statement to Newsweek on Monday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said, “The Republican Attorneys General Association takes its marching orders from its largest donors: fossil fuel interests and [influential conservative strategist] Leonard Leo. This was never anything more than an attempt to run interference, help the defendants in our cases avoid accountability, and play politics with the Constitution. I am glad the Supreme Court saw through it all and put an end to their charade.”

Supreme Court to Decide if States Can Ban LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy for Minors

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Colorado that will determine whether state and local governments can enforce bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors. The case comes amid broader debates on transgender rights, including actions by former President Donald Trump targeting transgender individuals and a pending Supreme Court decision on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Colorado is among nearly half of U.S. states that have outlawed conversion therapy, which seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling.

The central issue is whether Colorado’s law violates the free speech rights of licensed counselors. While the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law, the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta struck down similar local bans in Florida, reflecting a division among lower courts. The Supreme Court previously declined to take up a similar case in 2023, though Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas signaled their interest in addressing the issue. With at least four votes now securing a review, the case will be heard in the Court’s next term starting in October.

The appeal was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who argues that the law unfairly restricts professional speech. Her lawyers cite a 2018 Supreme Court decision that ruled California could not require anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Meanwhile, Colorado officials defend the law, arguing it regulates professional conduct to protect children, citing overwhelming evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective.

Reporting by The Associated Press contributed to this article.

This is a developing news story and will be updated as more information is available.

Update: 3/10/25, 12:02 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.

Update: 3/10/25, 12:40 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with a comment from the Minnesota attorney general.