The US Supreme Court has commenced its new term with a landmark case that could determine the extent of state power in addressing climate change. The case involves Boulder, Colorado, which is suing two major energy companies, Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil, for allegedly deceiving the public about the harms of fossil fuels and contributing to disasters that have caused significant damage. The lawsuit, filed in 2018, claims that the companies knew decades ago that fossil fuels would harm the environment, increasing the risk of floods, extreme heat, and wildfires.
The case has significant implications beyond climate change, as it could affect other areas where states are trying to hold companies accountable for their alleged harms to local communities. In late December 2021, the Marshall Fire swept across Boulder County, destroying homes and causing extensive damage. Daryl McCool, a resident who lost her home, described the devastating impact of the fire, which melted coins and bicycles, leaving nothing but ash in its wake. McCool has since been working to educate people about the human costs of climate change.
The legal director of the Center for Climate Integrity, Corey Riday-White, supports communities trying to hold oil companies responsible for environmental harms. Riday-White argues that the case represents a crucial question about whether corporations should be held to the same standards as individuals, and whether they should be required to help clean up the harm they cause. Boulder's lawsuit has not yet gone to trial and is still in the early stages in the Colorado court system.
However, the energy companies are asking the US Supreme Court to throw out the case, arguing that only the federal government has the power and expertise to address something as complex as climate change. Todd Zywicki, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, described the case as an attempt by "a bunch of rich hippies in Boulder County" to dictate environmental and energy policy to the rest of the world. The Trump administration has sided with the energy companies, arguing that global warming is a global issue.
Boulder argues that it is not suing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but rather to recover past and future costs of repairs, emergency services, and property damage. The city claims that the energy companies knew about the risks of fossil fuels and failed to disclose them, leading to significant harm. Dozens of similar cases have been moving through the courts, and any Supreme Court ruling could have repercussions for many of them.
The Supreme Court's decision could influence a range of issues beyond climate litigation, including pollution by forever chemicals, nuisance suits over AI data centers, and opioids litigation. The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court may be uncomfortable letting state juries decide some of these pressing issues, but legal experts are uncertain how the justices will shape a decision in the Boulder case.
In a surprise move, Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from the case due to concerns about his investments in Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips. His recusal means that eight justices will hear the case, and in the event of a 4-4 tie, the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court allowing Boulder's lawsuit to proceed will prevail. The court's decision on whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case could also have significant implications for the outcome.
Key points
- The US Supreme Court is set to hear a landmark climate change case that could determine the extent of state power in addressing climate change.
- The case involves Boulder, Colorado, suing two major energy companies, Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil, for allegedly deceiving the public about the harms of fossil fuels.
- The Supreme Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for state power, corporate accountability, and a range of issues beyond climate litigation.
