Supreme Court Declines Review of $40 Million Verdict Against DuPont: Justice Clarence Thomas Dissent

In a recent development on November 20, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed dissent following the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the $40 million verdict against DuPont in the case of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Abbott. The lawsuit centered on an Ohio man, Travis Abbott, who alleged that toxic chemicals released by DuPont into the water supply led to his cancer diagnosis.

The Court's denial of certiorari, or review, without explanation in an unsigned order, has sparked controversy and concerns over potential ramifications in numerous similar cases. Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, raised apprehensions that the decision could impact "potentially thousands of cases" and interfere with defendants' Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial.

Travis Abbott's assertions revolve around the discharge of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), labeled as a "forever chemical" due to its resistance to breakdown in both the human body and the environment. The chemicals, linked to the manufacturing of products like Teflon, allegedly originated from a DuPont facility in West Virginia, finding their way into the Ohio River.

DuPont, contesting the verdict, highlighted impediments faced during the civil trial held in 2020. The company claimed it was unfairly restricted from disputing previously determined findings that it negligently exposed individuals to PFOA in other lawsuits. Specifically, DuPont cited issues with "collateral estoppel," a legal doctrine barring parties from re-raising previously settled matters in litigation.

The company argued that this doctrine hindered its ability to mount a comprehensive defense in the Abbott case, labeling the limitations imposed on contesting "key elements of liability" as deeply flawed.

The Supreme Court's decision to refrain from delving into the intricacies of this high-stakes environmental case and its potential far-reaching consequences has left numerous questions unanswered. The unresolved nature of the Court's action may impact future litigations concerning corporate responsibility for hazardous substances, setting a precedent for legal battles involving "forever chemicals."

The implications of this decision are poised to resonate within legal circles and environmental advocacy groups, with ramifications reaching beyond the confines of this particular case. As Justice Thomas emphasized the broader implications of the Court's refusal to review, the conversation around corporate accountability and defendants' rights in complex environmental litigations is expected to intensify.

DuPont's stance and the Court's action highlight the complexities and challenges in navigating legal landscapes concerning environmental damage, corporate liability, and the pursuit of justice for affected individuals.