AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton recently filed an amicus brief in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corp. and an 11-state coalition accusing the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York of using governmental power to silence the views of those who oppose their personal views on climate change policy.
States included in the coalition are Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Arkansas – all listed as amici curiae. The brief was filed April 20.
The brief is a direct response to a subpoena issued by Eric Schneiderman, attorney general of New York, and Maura Healey, attorney general of Massachusetts, against ExxonMobil for the marketing and sale of fossil fuel products and securities. The subpoena requested more than 40 years’ worth of internal company documents – a direct attempt, Paxton says, to undermine public opinion in the company.
The defendants publicly announced their plans to target one side of the policy debate last year at the AGs Unite for Clean Power press conference, as part of a climate change coalition comprised of state attorneys. By following through with the subpoena, Paxton states that the attorneys general have violated ExxonMobil’s First Amendment rights.
The states that the attorneys general have “a constitutional duty to act dispassionately” and they used their government position to violate the sovereignty of the public by “embracing one side of a multi-faceted and robust policy debate, and simultaneously seeking to censor opposing viewpoints.”
The brief argues that the attorneys general abused their positions of power and undermined public confidence by failing to act impartially, as their professional code dictates. The document accuses the attorneys general of using censorship to silence opposing viewpoints, thus violating the plaintiff’s first amendment rights.
The brief goes on to state that the defendants “falsely presume that the scientific debate regarding climate change is settled, along with the related and equally important debate on how to respond to what science has found.” The document cautions that the subjects of science, law and public policy should be approached with objectivity, and that scientific debates fought through litigation and courts often result in “intolerant dogma” created by enthusiastic supporters.
The document accuses the defendants of issuing an investigation specifically to undermine public confidence of the opposing side, and using inflammatory language, like climate change “denier,” to enhance their cause.
The brief concludes by asking the court to grant the plaintiff’s request for relief and that the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of bad faith be denied.