Supreme Court Denies Exxonmobil’s Appeal In $14.3 Million Air Pollution Case

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a rustle to ExxonMobil by refusing to perceive an entreaty to overturn a little tribunal determination that ordered nan institution to salary $14.3 cardinal for Clean Air Act violations astatine its lipid refinery successful Baytown, Texas. The determination brings to an extremity nan decade-and-a-half-long ineligible conflict betwixt ExxonMobil and immoderate of its Baytown neighbors.

“David slays Goliath,” declared Neil Carman, cleanable aerial head for nan Lone Star section of nan Sierra Club, successful guidance to nan court’s decision. 

The case, Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil, resulted successful nan largest punishment ever imposed by a tribunal successful a citizen-initiated suit to enforce biology laws. In rejecting nan appeal, nan tribunal refused to reconsider nan underlying precedent that says erstwhile authorities and national agencies person not adequately enforced biology law, backstage citizens tin return ineligible action against companies that person committed violations that led to proven harm. 

The lawsuit has go a rallying constituent for biology organizations. ExxonMobil, connected nan different hand, had already revenge and mislaid 4 appeals since nan lawsuit initially went to proceedings successful 2014.

Why was ExxonMobil sued?

About 25 miles eastbound of downtown Houston, nan ExxonMobil Baytown complex takes up 3,400 acres wherever nan institution has an lipid refinery, chemic works and precocious recycling facility. The lipid refinery takes crude lipid and processes it into a usable fuel, producing astir 588,000 barrels a day. The Baytown analyzable is among nan largest petrochemical accommodation successful nan federation successful some size and production. 

The lawsuit started erstwhile Environment Texas, an Austin-based nonprofit, combed done emissions information and recovered excessive contamination based connected accusation ExxonMobil reported to authorities and national regulators. The statement recovered thousands of instances successful which ExxonMobil exceeded nan ineligible limits connected aerial contamination specified successful nan Baytown refinery’s permits nether nan Clean Air Act.

After discovering aerial licence violations, Environment Texas and nan Sierra Club recovered Baytown residents to attest astir really contamination impacted their wellness and livelihoods. ExxonMobil’s last entreaty was heard earlier a afloat sheet of 17 judges astatine nan 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued its determination successful December 2024. In nan end, nan tribunal agreed that ExxonMobil committed 16,386 violations of its aerial permits betwixt 2005 and 2013 and affirmed a little court’s $14.3 cardinal penalty, which is paid to nan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

In total, nan tribunal recovered nan refinery emitted 10 cardinal pounds of unauthorized pollution, 90% of which consisted of chemicals that nan EPA has said tin endanger nationalist health, specified arsenic benzene and volatile integrated compounds.

What does nan determination mean for backstage citizens’ ‘standing?’

In its entreaty to nan U.S. Supreme Court, ExxonMobil asked nan tribunal to reconsider a 25-year-old precedent, Friends of nan Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, which allows backstage citizens to record lawsuits nether nan Clean Air Act. That precedent held that civilian penalties tin redress injuries national plaintiffs person suffered by deterring early violations.

The court’s refusal to perceive nan lawsuit preserves what attorneys telephone “constitutional standing” for neighbors to enforce biology laws erstwhile authorities agencies won’t act. The Texas Commission connected Environmental Quality fined ExxonMobil complete $1.3 cardinal for only 36 aerial licence violations committed from 2005 to 2013, the Houston Landing has reported. 

David Nicholas, a lead lawyer for nan biology groups, said rejecting nan entreaty “confirms that Constitutional opinionated for neighbors enforcing national biology laws is live and well.”

What is nan reaction?

A spokesperson for ExxonMobil did not respond to a petition for remark astatine nan clip of publication. After nan suit was revenge successful 2010, ExxonMobil attempted to reside nan pollution. According to a dissenting sentiment astatine nan 5th Circuit Court, nan institution invested $6 cardinal successful attraction and instrumentality to amended power emissions, resulting successful a 95% simplification successful unauthorized contamination from 2006 to 2013.

ExxonMobil is nan largest employer successful Baytown, a awesome petrochemical hub that is besides location to a Chevron Phillips chemic plant. Numerous different refineries and petrochemical processing accommodation are located adjacent connected nan Houston Ship Channel, wherever companies tin easy import earthy materials and export products. 

Former Baytown resident Sharon Sprayberry testified against ExxonMobil astatine trial. In a connection to Straight Arrow News, Sprayberry described nan 15-year saga arsenic a “long and difficult pursuit of justice,” and said fights complete cleanable aerial are much important now than ever. 

Sprayberry grew up successful Baytown and developed asthma astatine a young age. Her asthma subsided erstwhile she near for college, but it came roaring backmost erstwhile a profession opportunity enticed her to move backmost to Baytown arsenic an adult. 

“I americium celebrating our team’s victory,” said Sprayberry, who has since relocated to Waco, Texas, owed successful portion to concerns astir her health. “But make nary mistake, nan activity is really ne'er complete erstwhile group are struggling to breathe.”