News
New climate paper calls for charging big US oil firms with homicide
Assignment
Finish the materials from last class.
We are going to look at the second defense to the nuisance claims against Exxon Mobil, the use of state anti-SLAPP statutes to attack the claims as violations of the company’s right to petition the government. (Short review of SLAPP suits.) The anti-SLAPP suits directly tee up the free speech defense that the company wants to get before the Supreme Court. There is some evidence that the fossil fuel industry was an early player in the movement to get the Court to expand commercial free speech protections:
Exclusive: The Fossil Fuel Roots of the Corporate Free Speech Movement (drilledpodcast.com)
The case we are looking at was argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The opinion is conclusionary so we are going to read Exxon Mobil’s brief before we read the court’s opinion on the motion.
Exxon Mobil v. Massachusetts – Anti-SLAPP Brief
Think about whether ExxonMobil is the sort of plaintiff that the anti-SLAPP statute is intended to protect and how that might influence the Mass court. There is no federal anti-SLAPP statute, but the current Supreme Court is protective of commercial speech. Is this a path to get the nuisance cases before the Supreme Court?
Read – Special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute denied