Open PDF File, 1.94 MB, for August 3, 2018 Brief of Exxon Mobil Corporation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page1 of 125 18-1170 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT EdXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, —against— MAURA TRACY HEALEY, In her official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. PATRICK J. CONLON DANIEL J. TOAL DANIEL E. BOLIA PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION & GARRISON LLP 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway 1285 Avenue of the Americas Spring, Texas 77389 New York, New York 10019 (832) 648-5500 (212) 373-3000 JUSTIN ANDERSON PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page2 of 125 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Plaintiff-Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation states that it has no parent corporation and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page3 of 125 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii I. Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1 II. Jurisdictional Statement ................................................................................... 3 III. Statement of the Issues Presented .................................................................... 3 IV. Statement of the Case ...................................................................................... 5 A. Statement of Facts ................................................................................. 5 1. ExxonMobil Speaks about Climate Change and Advocates for Climate Policy ..................................................... 5 2. Opponents of ExxonMobil’s Speech Plot to Suppress It Using State Power ....................................................................... 7 3. The Attorneys General Adopt the La Jolla Playbook and Rockefeller Agenda Targeting ExxonMobil’s Speech ............. 10 4. The Attorneys General Conceal Their Connections to the La Jolla and Rockefeller Activists ............................................ 13 5. Documents Confirm the Attorneys General’s Intent to Suppress Speech ........................................................................ 14 6. The Attorneys General’s Public Justifications Are Pretext for Viewpoint Discrimination ................................................... 17 B. Procedural History ............................................................................... 18 1. Proceedings in the Northern District of Texas ......................... 18 2. Proceedings in Massachusetts State Court ................................ 20 3. Proceedings in the Southern District of New York .................. 21 V. Standard of Review........................................................................................ 24 VI. Argument ....................................................................................................... 24 A. Summary of the Argument .................................................................. 24 B. ExxonMobil Stated Plausible Claims of Constitutional Violations. ... 27 1. Applicable Law ......................................................................... 27 2. The District Court Should Not Have Dismissed ExxonMobil’s First Amendment Claim ................................... 27 (a) ExxonMobil’s Complaint States a Claim of Viewpoint Discrimination .............................................. 27 i Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page4 of 125 (b) The District Court Failed to Address ExxonMobil’s Claim of Viewpoint Discrimination. ...... 32 (c) The District Court Improperly Imposed an Evidentiary Burden, Rejected Plausible Inferences, and Overlooked Important Allegations. ......................... 34 (d) The District Court Improperly Drew Inferences in Favor of the Attorneys General and Credited Their Defenses. ......................................................................... 41 3. The District Court Should Not Have Dismissed ExxonMobil’s Other Constitutional Claims ............................. 44 (a) ExxonMobil Stated a Claim under the Fourth Amendment. .................................................................... 45 (b) ExxonMobil Stated a Claim under the Due Process Clause. ............................................................................ 48 (c) ExxonMobil Stated a Claim under the Commerce Clause. ............................................................................ 50 C. Res Judicata Did Not Bar ExxonMobil’s Claims Against Attorney General Healey .................................................................................... 53 1. ExxonMobil’s Claims Were Not Raised or Decided in the Massachusetts State Proceeding ......................................... 54 2. ExxonMobil Lacked a Full and Fair Opportunity to Raise Constitutional Claims in the Summary State Court Proceedings ............................................................................... 57 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 61 ii Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page5 of 125 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) ............................................................................................ 39 Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 50 FTC v. Am. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924) ...................................................................................... 45, 46 Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 27, 35, 54 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................ 27 Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200 (1st Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 50 Bank of India v. Trendi Sportswear, Inc., 239 F.3d 428 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 58 Beals v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 189 (2004) ............................................................................. 59 Bernier v. Bernier, 449 Mass. 774 (2007) ................................................................................... 54, 56 Blue v. Koren, 72 F.3d 1075 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................................................................... 33 United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 49 Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 24 iii Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018, 2359373, Page6 of 125 City of San Francisco v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 096-297222-18, 2018 Tex. Dist. LEXIS 1 (Tarrant Cty. Tex. Apr. 24, 2018) ............................................................................................... 24, 52 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) ............................................................................................ 21 United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1996) ................................................................................. 45 Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) ............................................................................................ 34 Day v. Kerkorian, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 804 (2004) ............................................................................. 56 Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 53 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Attorney General, 479 Mass. 312 (2018) .......................................................................21 , 55, 56, 57 Fidler v. E.M. Parker Co., 394 Mass. 534 (1985) ......................................................................................... 54 Foster v. Evans, 384 Mass. 687 (1981) ................................................................................... 56, 58 Greenwich Citizens Comm., Inc. v. Ctys. of Warren & Wash. Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................. 33, 35 Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 (1988) ..................................................................................... 55, 59 Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) ............................................................................................ 52 In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1973) ................................................................................. 45 Husain v. Springer, 494 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 39 iv Case 18-1170, Document 69, 08/03/2018,