Supreme Court to Decide on Major Climate Change Lawsuit

All attention is directed toward the Supreme Court this week, as justices prepare to announce their decision on a significant climate change case. On Friday, they’ll determine whether to accept a petition regarding a lawsuit in Colorado that seeks extensive damages from oil companies for alleged harm associated with carbon emissions.

The case, Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. et al. v. Boulder County Commissioners, revolves around whether federal law prevents state law nuisance claims pertaining to emissions that span interstate and global boundaries. Boulder, Colorado, has initiated legal action against multiple energy firms under the Colorado Nuisance Act, citing the impacts of climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision, remarkably ruling that federal law does not override state law claims. The key issue is whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) takes precedence over state public nuisance claims tied to carbon emissions. Precedents set by at least ten other cases have sided with the defendant companies, indicating that the CAA does indeed supersede Colorado law. If the Supreme Court chooses to consider the case, a similar ruling seems likely.

A ruling in favor of defendants would echo a 2021 decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which maintained that local governments cannot pursue international corporations through state tort law for climate-related issues, as these concerns intertwine with federalism and foreign policy. Essentially, the court determined that the CAA entrusts the Environmental Protection Agency with regulating emissions, rather than federal courts. Given the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, it’s anticipated they might reach a comparable conclusion.

Lawyers representing Boulder increasingly recognize the complex legal issues at play, as they pursue cases that could challenge federal regulatory authority and potentially increase energy prices for consumers. David Bookbinder, part of the Boulder legal team, bluntly stated that “tort liability is an indirect carbon tax.” He emphasized in a Federalist Society webinar that the costs imposed by these products will ultimately fall on the consumers.

While experiencing a pullback associated with the case, Bookbinder made it clear that the “spin machine” impacts all sides. Indeed, consumers are currently bearing the financial burden from ongoing litigation, even as numerous defendants have been found not liable in past legal instances. The mountain of legal expenses—accumulated by the defendants in these lawsuits—will likely lead to increased energy prices. It’s not a conspiracy; rather it’s pretty straightforward business management.

Activist groups and corporate litigants are broadening their efforts in courts nationwide after failing to implement a national carbon tax via legislation. Despite their push, the legal principles involved are quite definitive, and it’s crucial for the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent further exploitation of the legal system.