The Supreme Court opened its new term this week with arguments in a case that could decide whether dozens of climate lawsuits against oil companies live or die. Boulder County, Colorado, is suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy under state law, seeking damages for harms it attributes to climate change and for what it calls deception about fossil-fuel risks; the companies want the case thrown out.
The companies, backed by the administration, argue that climate change is a global problem governed by federal policy, and that the federal Clean Air Act displaces state-law claims of this kind. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s lawsuit to proceed, and the companies appealed. One justice recused himself, leaving eight to hear the first argument of the term.
The stakes extend far beyond one county. Nearly 60 state and local governments have filed similar suits seeking billions of dollars for infrastructure repairs, environmental damage, emergency management and public-health costs they link to a warming climate. A ruling for the companies could lead to many of those cases being dismissed; a ruling for Boulder would let them move toward trial.
The legal question is narrower than the public debate. The justices are deciding whether particular claims can proceed in state court and under what doctrine, not setting national emissions policy or ruling on climate science. That boundary, both sides acknowledge, is where the case will be won or lost.
It is also only the first item on a heavy docket. Cases on immigration enforcement, state bans on assault-style rifles, voting rules and religious-school funding are queued for the coming months, in a term that will test how far the court’s majority is willing to move American law, and how fast. No decision in the Boulder case is expected for months.
Lower courts are watching the case for practical reasons beyond climate policy: states and cities have filed the suits under consumer-protection and nuisance doctrines that also underpin litigation over opioids, firearms marketing and water contamination. A decision that federal law displaces state claims in one field can migrate to others, which is why attorneys general of both parties, and industries far from oil, have filed briefs telling the justices what is at stake for them.
US News Zone will continue to follow this story as further official information is confirmed.
Related reading: Texas Becomes a Midterm Battleground as Campaigning Intensifies in San Antonio · Payments to Seniors and Health-Care Buyers Head Out Weeks Before the Midterms · News Outlets Return to Court Over White House Press Access Ban
