WASHINGTON, D.C.—On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court closed ExxonMobil Corporation’s last possible avenue for appeal, putting a long overdue stamp of finality on a landmark judgment won by Environment Texas and the Sierra Club against the fossil fuel giant.
After a 16-year legal battle, Exxon must finally pay a $14.25 million penalty for committing more than 16,000 violations of the federal Clean Air Act at its Bay- town, Texas, refinery and chemical complex—the largest penalty imposed after trial in any citizen-initiated case to enforce the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act.
More importantly, the lawsuit spurred Exxon to spend nearly a billion dollars on safety and pollution reduction measures at its sprawling 3,400-acre Baytown complex, in an effort to cut down on the notorious “emission events” that spewed over 10 million pounds of illegal pollution into surrounding neighborhoods over the eight-year period covered by the lawsuit.
“This wasn’t just a court case,” said NELC’s Boston Office Managing Attorney Josh Kratka. “This was a fight for the right of regular people to breathe clean air and to hold even the world’s largest corporations accountable when they interfere with that right.”
Four courageous Baytown residents testified at trial that they endured persistent and terrifying flaring events, toxic chemical leaks, massive industrial fires, and foul odors from the nearby oil refinery and chemical plants run by Exxon. NELC attorneys proved, through expert testimony and many thousands of pages of evidence, that Exxon exposed people to illegal emissions of 24 different pollutants, from cancer-causing chemicals to respiratory irritants.
But even after Exxon’s lead attorney admitted, in response to a direct question from the judge on the last day of trial, that the company had indeed violated the emission limits in its permits many thousands of times, Exxon proceeded to spend nine years filing ap- peals, in an attempt to escape responsibility for its actions.
Exxon’s argument? That regular people who are harmed by the continuing threat of illegal pollution somehow don’t have enough of a personal stake in the case to give them the legal standing to seek the imposition of penalties that will deter future violations. That’s why one Fifth Circuit judge called this “an important case that impacts not only Exxon but also standing doctrine and environmental law more generally.”
The result? Exxon lost four times in front of the usually business-friendly Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and was then unable to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to review those decisions.
The moral? Persistence, commitment, and the truth of incontrovertible facts can—and must—prevail against even the most well-heeled polluters and their vast legal teams.
