Last month, a federal district court struck down Missouri's anti-ESG rules that would prohibit investment advisors from utilizing ESG factors when making investment decisions (absent written consent of the client). Specifically, the court awarded summary judgment to SIFMA, a trade association that had challenged the anti-ESG rules, and held that the rules violated the U.S. Constitution.
Missouri had elected to appeal that ruling to the Eighth Circuit. However, the Missouri Attorney-General has now abandoned that appeal, dooming the anti-ESG rules previously championed by Missouri. (As part of the agreement to end the appeal, SIFMA is receiving only $500,000 in legal fees--rather than the $1.3 million in legal fees it had originally sought.)
While there is now no opportunity for the specific anti-ESG rules Missouri had promulgated to be revived, the decision to abandon the appeal also means that the Eighth Circuit will not have the opportunity to opine on the legality of these rules--and so avoids the prospect of a legal judgment that would devastate the anti-ESG political project. A ruling from the Eighth Circuit that affirmed the district court's holding that the anti-ESG rules were unconstitutional would be a far greater hurdle for subsequent efforts by Missouri (and similarly-inclined states) to surmount if they engaged in subsequent anti-ESG legislation and regulation, rather than a single opinion by a federal district court.
Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has agreed to drop his appeal of a court ruling that ended state limits on ESG investing and pay the Wall Street trade group that brought the suit $500,000.
The deal the Republican official struck with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and disclosed in Sept. 27 court filings bars the secretary of state from pursuing his Sept. 13 appeal to the August ruling by Judge Stephen R. Bough of the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri that blocked the state’s 2023 environmental, social and governance rules. The $500,000 covers attorney’s fees for SIFMA, according to the filings, one of which was filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where Ashcroft was challenging the US district court’s decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.