US Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of state-led climate lawsuits against oil companies

By: Michael Macagnone Source: Roll Call

Demonstrators rally against oil corporations involved in the suit against Colorado municipalities outside of the Supreme Court Building on Monday. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Monday of an effort by Boulder, Colorado, to hold major oil producers accountable in state courts for the harms caused by climate change.

Across nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices raised concerns about upsetting the balance between states and the federal government, as well as Congress's power to regulate pollution issues. The case—the first of the justices' new term—may effectively decide whether several dozen lawsuits from cities and counties seeking damages under state law can move forward nationwide.

Key Arguments

Several times during oral arguments, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and other members of the court's conservative bloc pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that air and water pollution are federal issues, not subject to state courts.

Kavanaugh said those cases "make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are federal issues."

The case originated when Boulder County sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in state court to recover damages caused by wildfires that the county argued were worsened due to climate change. The county contended that the companies had for years downplayed the risks of climate change despite what their own research showed.

After losing an effort to fend off the suit in a lower state court, Suncor and ExxonMobil asked the justices to intervene, arguing that federal law barred the state suit. The suit has not yet gone to trial or received a final ruling from the state Supreme Court.

Positions of the Parties

Kannon K. Shanmugam, attorney for the oil companies, argued that the dozens of state cases the companies face are an effort to dictate federal energy and environmental policy through court-imposed financial liability.

"The cases reflect an all too regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong."

Sarah M. Harris, principal deputy solicitor general arguing on behalf of the Trump administration—on the same side as the oil giants—argued that the Clean Air Act and the Constitution give Congress the primary role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Allowing the suit to proceed, she said, would effectively let Colorado state courts upset that balance.

Harris stated that just because Boulder found a way to plead the case not explicitly covered by federal law, "states don't get to then fill a vacuum of federal area with state law."

In response, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pointed to EPA decisions this year seeking to disclaim federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Gorsuch questioned whether, in the wake of those EPA decisions, "nobody can sue at all."

Harris argued that Congress has already addressed the issue through renewable fuel standards in legislation concerning ethanol use in vehicles. The EPA decisions to renounce greenhouse gas emissions regulation are currently being challenged in federal courts.

Questions of Scope and Precedent

Boulder attorney Kevin K. Russell faced numerous questions about whether the county's claims had any kind of limits. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that a ruling in Boulder's favor would potentially allow many more lawsuits.

"Presumably if you prevail, the next day, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit that will probably copy your pleadings."

Exactly how the justices handle the case could have reverberations beyond Boulder's specific suit. Shanmugam emphasized that the case could affect dozens already filed in state courts across the country. He urged the justices to rule on two grounds, including that the Constitution itself, as well as the Clean Air Act, barred the state suits.

Several justices expressed skepticism about the companies' efforts to quash the suits. On the broader constitutional claims, Roberts noted that the justices have traditionally allowed suits when a plaintiff is harmed by a defendant's actions in another state—for example, "if you throw a rock over the border and hit them."

Justice Elena Kagan analogized the lawsuit to previous cases over harms caused by tobacco and opioids, pressing Shanmugam on why those claims could proceed.

"If this is chapter three, were chapters one and two also preempted?"

Shanmugam responded that the tobacco and opioid cases were more specific about the harm caused and did not involve air and water pollution.

"This is a very different book, not a chapter in the same book."

Recusal and Procedural History

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. announced last week that he was recusing himself from the case but did not provide a reason. Alito also recused himself from a prior incarnation of the case in 2023, when the justices ultimately declined to hear it, allowing the state court action to move forward.

The case has worked its way through the courts for years and has served as background for political struggles over investigations into major oil companies in Congress by Democrats. Republicans have dismissed the probes as political stunts, but they could return should either chamber change hands next year.

Outlook

The justices will likely issue a decision in the case before the end of the term next June.

*The case is Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.*

David Jordan contributed to this report.