Supreme Court to Examine Climate Liability Case
On October 5, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments in the case of Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. This case is being described as one of the most significant climate liability lawsuits to ever reach the Court.
The Boulder case is part of a larger trend—over three dozen climate change lawsuits initiated by progressive states, cities, and counties across the nation. While these climate litigants present their cases as addressing local issues stemming from the energy sector’s alleged contribution to climate change, their true intention seems to be about steering American energy policy and economic direction through state court rulings.
In August, a collection of more than twenty nonprofit organizations, scholars, and former government officials submitted amicus briefs on Boulder’s behalf. Unsurprisingly, various progressive cities and counties, along with their lawyers from the prominent climate plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, urged the Court to allow their climate-related lawsuits to keep moving forward. Yet, this push involved a broader coalition—constitutional law academics and some members of Congress also joined the effort.
What stands out about these briefs is the influence of significant funding behind this climate litigation movement, emphasizing that it’s an ideological drive aimed at circumventing the electoral process in favor of left-leaning financial interests.
For instance, a brief titled “Preemption Scholars” was filed by six law professors and came from Hausfeld LLP and DiCello Levitt, law firms that typically represent climate plaintiffs. Notably, four of the six signatories are affiliated with the Center for Progressive Reform, an organization backed by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and the Tides Foundation, which also funds Sher Edling. One of these scholars, Daniel Farber, is also the director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), which receives grants from the Clean Break Fund, an entity dedicated to promoting climate litigation.
Another brief, representing concerns from former EPA officials and senior staff, revealed something interesting: its preparation was funded by the Clean Break Fund. This fund also apparently supports EarthJustice, which is listed as counsel on a brief filed by Georgetown Law professor William Buzbee.
Furthermore, the Clean Break Fund has ties to NYU Law’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, an initiative aimed at enhancing climate and environmental justice, even sponsoring NYU Law Fellows to work in state attorneys general’s offices. The center claims its fellows have been involved in various AG offices across multiple states, most of which have also signed a brief in support of Boulder, and some even pursuing their own climate lawsuits.
This narrative continues with Alan Morrison, who filed a brief highlighting his background as a constitutional law professor, but notably omitted his role in founding the litigation branch of Public Citizen, a group known for pushing for criminal charges against energy companies. Public Citizen has its own brief on this case and shares numerous financial backers, including Open Society, with other amici involved.
One of the more questionable entries is a brief supposedly reflecting the views of “Colorado ranchers” worried about climate change. The first name listed, Kathryn Bedell, is linked to the Western Organization of Resource Councils, which, as mentioned, receives funding from the Tides Foundation and the New Venture Fund, another supporter of Sher Edling. Another name on that list, Deirdre Macnab, is a well-known solar energy advocate and a former president of the Florida League of Women Voters, which also has connections to Tides and Open Society.
The situation escalated further when ninety Democratic Congress members, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, submitted a rather forceful brief. It’s worth noting that Whitehouse has accepted campaign donations from Sher Edling’s associates since 2016. The legal representation for these Congress members was provided by the Ridgeline Center for Law and Policy, previously known as the Center for Applied Environmental Law and Policy, a project of the New Venture Fund.
This intricate web of connections illustrates how resolving this issue in just one state court isn’t likely to halt this movement. The financial trail indicates that there are numerous lawsuits linked back to a small number of law firms and influential dark-money funders.
Fundamentally, these cases represent a strategic, ideologically driven campaign to reshape American society. Without intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s likely these lawsuits will persist in accommodating jurisdictions, backed by a well-organized dark-money framework, until significant financial penalties fulfill the left’s ideological ambitions. This isn’t an appropriate method for determining the governance of our nation.
The future direction of our country, economy, and national energy policy shouldn’t hinge on state court decisions like these. The Justices should make that clear in their ruling on Suncor.
