Supreme Court To Hear Colorado County’s Climate Change Case Against Oil Companies

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear arguments in a landmark case that could determine whether state and local governments can sue fossil fuel companies for climate change damages.The nation’s highest court agreed to review Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a Colorado case in which Boulder claims oil and gas companies knowingly contributed to climate change and caused millions of dollars in damage to county property and residents. Exxon Mobil Corp. is also part of the case.The decision came after the justices weighed the case at five consecutive semiweekly conferences it holds on whether to grant hearings for petitioners. In an unusual move, the court instructed both parties to address whether the U.S. Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to hear the case, as the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling may not yet be final.Boulder’s lawsuit alleges that Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc. misled the public about climate change risks while knowingly producing and promoting fossil fuels that contributed to the problem. The county argues these companies should help cover the costs that state and local governments incur to address climate change impacts, including injuries and damages caused by wildfires, pests, droughts, extreme heat, and flooding.The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that federal law did not override Boulder’s state-law claims. While the court expressed “no opinion on the ultimate viability of the merits” of Boulder’s claims, it rejected the oil companies’ arguments for dismissal.The oil and gas companies argue the U.S. Constitution prohibits state courts from addressing global issues like climate change through state law. “Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” the companies wrote in their appeal. “The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Exxon and Suncor argued. The lawsuits seek to “impose untold damages on energy companies for the physical and economic effects of climate change.”The companies maintain that state-law claims are superseded by federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, and the federal government’s power to conduct foreign policy. “Seeking injury in the form of physical harms allegedly caused by global emissions, as petitioners do, is just an indirect method of regulating interstate and international emissions,” lawyers for the oil companies wrote in a brief to the high court.The Trump administration filed a “friend of the court” brief urging the justices to take up the case, arguing that individual states shouldn’t be able to regulate nationwide energy policy.“Allowing Colorado to deem the effects of the companies’ worldwide conduct tortious ‘cannot be reconciled with the decision-making scheme Congress enacted’ in the Clean Air Act, which precludes any such role for a single State,” lawyers for the Trump administration wrote.Without waiting for a request from the justices, the Trump administration contended that “Colorado … may not apply its law to the companies’ conduct outside the State.”Boulder urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal, arguing the companies are pushing “a constitutional theory they have yet to convince any appellate court to adopt.”“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” reads the filing from attorneys for Boulder to the Supreme Court.The county contended that taking up the case now “would require the Court to wade into a thicket of preliminary questions that promise nothing but rabbit holes and dead ends.” Boulder also argued that the companies’ “novel constitutional theory would vest judges—not legislators—with broad authority to decide” whether federal or state law should apply in particular areas.Similar lawsuits are pending across the country and could ultimately cost the oil and gas industry billions of dollars if allowed to proceed. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could affect dozens of city and state lawsuits that blame oil companies for climate change.In October, the Maryland Supreme Court heard arguments in a similar case against large oil companies. Justices appeared skeptical of three separate cases from Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel counties against British oil and gas company BP.“It seems like your theory of injury and relief are all tied and necessary for relief on international emissions,” Justice Brynja Booth said after the hearing.The Supreme Court has previously turned away related appeals. In January, the court declined to hear oil company appeals in a similar case pressed by Honolulu. In March, the justices rejected an unusual bid by 19 Republican-run states to directly sue five Democratic-run states in an attempt to derail the lawsuits.The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case in the fall, with a decision expected before the end of the year.

Supreme Court To Hear Colorado County’s Climate Change Case Against Oil Companies

More from the New York Sun

President Xi, Courting North Korea’s Kim Jong-un at Pyongyang, Is Likely To Play Moscow Against Washington

A New Museum Hidden Beneath the Lincoln Memorial Opens June 25

Noël Coward, Back in Fashion on Stage

More from the New York Sun

President Xi, Courting North Korea’s Kim Jong-un at Pyongyang, Is Likely To Play Moscow Against Washington

A New Museum Hidden Beneath the Lincoln Memorial Opens June 25

Noël Coward, Back in Fashion on Stage

Do the Democrats Want the Iranian Dictatorship To Win?

Lamar Alexander Offers a Welcome Break From Today’s Glue-Factory Politics

Scientists Unveil New Rules for Announcing Alien Contact — Including a Strict ‘No Reply’ Order

USDA Rushes Experts to Texas Following Second Confirmed Screwworm Case

Bot Traffic Surpasses Human Activity Online for the First Time