Supreme Court Begins New Term with Climate Change Case
The US Supreme Court kicked off its new nine-month term on Monday by considering a request from oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. The companies are seeking to stop a lawsuit from Boulder, Colorado, where officials are asking for financial compensation for damages they attribute to climate change.
Following a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed Boulder’s legal action to move forward, Exxon and Suncor appealed. The Trump administration has supported the oil companies, claiming that federal oversight on air pollution regulations should take precedence over Boulder’s accusations.
Kannon Shanmugam, a lawyer representing the oil firms, stated during the hearing, “This case involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct.” He emphasized that their actions, while tied to state law, relate to broader global impacts.
In making their argument, Shanmugam explained, “Boulder is suing the oil companies under Colorado law on the theory that their global conduct increased the global use of fossil fuels, which led to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, which contributed to global climate change, which resulted in global harms.” He insisted that such a use of state law is not permissible within the constitutional framework.
Shanmugam pointed out that, due to the interconnectedness of air and water and the conflicting rights between states, the Supreme Court has long maintained that federal law governs interstate pollution issues. He argued that this principle holds even more weight with global climate change claims.
As oral arguments continued, it was clear that this case was just one among many significant ones on the court’s agenda this term. It also includes high-profile cases related to former President Trump’s immigration policies and state prohibitions on assault-style rifles.
Colorado’s local governments accuse Exxon and Suncor of exacerbating climate change while misleading the public regarding the dangers of fossil fuels. Boulder seeks to hold these companies financially responsible for costs incurred from climate change-related issues, including infrastructure repairs and public health concerns.
The release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels has been linked to increased global temperatures over time. Nearly 60 local and state governments have initiated similar lawsuits, seeking billions from fossil fuel companies, as noted by Exxon and Suncor. A ruling in favor of these companies could potentially undermine many ongoing legal actions.
Arguments heard on Monday reflected a broader trend where energy companies challenge climate-related accountability and seek to limit federal environmental oversight. Proponents of the oil companies contend that if Boulder’s extensive claims are validated, states could gain disproportionate power over activities beyond their borders.
For the past twenty years, energy firms, alongside supportive trade groups and states, have successfully navigated a number of cases regarding climate liability and federal regulatory authority in front of the Supreme Court, establishing a favorable track record.
Exxon and Suncor further argue that Boulder’s lawsuit intrudes into existing federal jurisdiction and affects the Clean Air Act. Notably, the court currently has a conservative majority of 6-3, but Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from this particular case due to his ownership of stock in various oil and gas enterprises, though not in Exxon or Suncor.
A decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by the end of June. Prior to this case, the court declined to hear appeals from Zillow Group, which faced a class action for potentially misleading investors about its failed home-flipping business, and from Nexstar Media Group, which sought to block an antitrust lawsuit from DirecTV regarding inflated content-distribution fees.
