• The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene in a legal dispute over climate change involving nearly half of the nation’s states. This decision allows lawsuits from five Democratic-led states to proceed against major oil and gas companies in state courts despite attempts from 19 Republican-led states to block the litigation.
• The lawsuits accuse energy companies of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. They argue this deception led to increased fossil fuel use and environmental harm. Red states argued state courts should not regulate activities beyond their borders, warning of impacts on the national energy system.
• Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, criticizing the decision undermining the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in resolving state disputes.

Full Story

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a legal dispute involving nearly half of the nation’s states over climate change. The decision allows lawsuits brought by five Democratic-led states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island—to proceed against major oil and gas companies in state courts despite attempts from a group of Republican-led states to block the litigation.

What are these lawsuits claiming?

The lawsuits, filed between 2018 and 2023, accuse the energy companies of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels despite allegedly knowing for decades that greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to climate change. The Democratic-led states claim that this deceptive marketing led consumers to use more fossil fuels, exacerbating environmental damage.

What was the argument from red states against the suits?

Meanwhile, Alabama and other 18 Republican-led states urged the Supreme Court to end these lawsuits. They argued that state courts should not be able to regulate activities beyond their borders, particularly those involving energy production governed by federal law. The red states warned that if the lawsuits succeed, they could have significant implications for the national energy system and the affordability of power.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

“If defendant states are right about the substance and reach of state law, their actions imperil access to affordable energy everywhere and inculpate every state and indeed every person on the planet,” the red states wrote. “Consequently, defendant states threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.”

How did the blue states respond to these accusations?

However, the blue states that brought these lawsuits forward counter that the legal actions do not infringe upon the rights of other states to pursue their own energy policies. They maintain that holding energy companies accountable for alleged misinformation is a matter of state jurisdiction.

“Accurately understood, the state enforcement actions that Alabama targets do not intrude on the sovereign prerogatives of Alabama or any other state,” the blue states wrote. “Even if each one of those actions succeeds, Alabama and other states will remain free to pursue their own energy policy goals.”

Was the Supreme Court decision unanimous?

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case. Thomas argued that doing so undermines the Constitution’s provision for resolving disputes between states.

“Our exclusive original jurisdiction over suits between states reflects a determination by the framers and by Congress about the need ‘to open and keep open the highest court of the nation’ for such suits, in recognition of the ‘rank and dignity of the states,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, this court has — essentially for policy reasons — assumed a power to summarily turn away suits between states.”

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced that the State Department is officially canceling 83% of USAID programs. Rubio said that includes 5,200 contracts worth tens of billions of dollars.
• The remaining 18%, or approximately 1,000 programs, will be administered in consultation with Congress.
• In 2023, the federal government spent $71.9 billion on foreign aid.

Full Story

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the State Department is officially canceling 83% of USAID programs after a six-week review. Rubio said that includes 5,200 contracts worth tens of billions of dollars.

Why are the programs being canceled?

“[The contracts] did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” Rubio said in a statement.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The remaining 18%, or approximately 1,000 programs, will be administered in consultation with Congress. Rubio thanked DOGE staff members for achieving what he described as “historic reform.”

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.” It ordered a 90-day pause in U.S. foreign development assistance to check for “programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy.” 

The order said money cannot be dispersed if it doesn’t fully align with the foreign policy of the president.

“[The funds] serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries,” the order stated.

What are Democrats saying about the move?

Recently, some Senate Democrats expressed regret in supporting Marco Rubio for secretary of state. This announcement appears to be adding to the remorse.

“This is another illegal move from an administration that has shown outright hostility to the rule of law and separation of powers,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., stated.

“President Trump’s decisions are making America isolated, vulnerable, and less safe,” Coons continued. The work of foreign assistance prevents China from expanding its influence, advances American interests and prevents disasters before they reach our shores.”

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

Other recent updates on USAID

Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in frozen foreign aid by Monday, March 10. The administration was sued by several nonprofits and aid groups set to lose money from USAID due to the freeze.

In 2023, the federal government spent $71.9 billion on foreign aid.