California, New York and 11 other states have filed an amicus brief supporting a case in which the state of Rhode Island seeks to hold the oil industry liable for climate change.

In a filing Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the states argued to uphold a July 22 ruling remanding Rhode Island's case to state court, where its lawyers prefer to pursue their claims that 21 oil companies contributed to climate change in violation of public nuisance law.

Rhode Island's lawsuit is the latest climate change case, pending before a federal appeals court, in which some of the same attorneys general have filed briefs supporting the claims. The cases assert public nuisance, the same claim that governments have brought over the opioid epidemic and lead paint.

"Just like with the opioid crisis, the consequences of climate change often are felt locally, and state and local governments play a critical role in crafting and implementing solutions," wrote attorneys for the states in the amicus brief filed in the Rhode Island case. The states included California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York.

Ted Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles represents the oil companies in the case, and Rhode Island's attorney is Victor Sher of San Francisco's Sher Edling.

Nine states, including California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, made a similar argument in a Sept. 3 brief filed in a case brought by the city of Baltimore. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments last month. Boutrous argued to reverse a remand order, while Sher represented the city of Baltimore.

Both attorneys also plan to square off again Feb. 5 in similar appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In one of those cases, 10 states, including California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, and the District of Columbia, filed a March 20 amicus brief supporting reversal of a 2018 decision in which the judge denied remand of the case to state court, then dismissed the case altogether. The city and county of San Francisco and city of Oakland brought that case against five fuel companies.

In the second California case, eight states are backing the counties of San Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz, and the city of Imperial Beach, in arguing to affirm remand of a climate change case.

New York, California, New Jersey and five other states, and the District of Columbia, also sought reversal of an order dismissing a case brought by the city of New York. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments Nov. 22. Boutrous argued that case for five oil companies, while John Moore, an attorney with the city Law Department, represented the city of New York.

Not all governments are on the side of the plaintiffs, however. In some cases, more than a dozen other state attorneys general, including those in Georgia and Texas, have taken the opposing view that the courts should not adjudicate climate change. The U.S. government also has filed briefs in support of federal preemption.

Other organizations, such as Public Citizen and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed amicus briefs in the cases.