The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in a case that could determine whether local governments can use state courts to extract billions from American energy companies — costs that will pass straight through to your gas pump and utility bill if the plaintiffs get their way.
Boulder County, Colorado is suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in state court, claiming the companies deceived the public about what fossil fuels would do to the climate and should pay for the resulting disaster costs. More than two dozen similar suits from state and local governments are pending nationwide. If the Supreme Court lets Boulder's case proceed, every jurisdiction with a friendly judge becomes a potential revenue pipe for the climate litigation industry — and the companies will recoup their losses at your expense.
The legal question is whether federal law trumps these state-level claims. Exxon and Suncor argue it does: that climate change is a federal matter and state courts have no business imposing liability that effectively regulates energy production nationwide. The Trump administration agrees, backing the companies with the argument that global warming is, by definition, a global issue.
Boulder insists it isn't trying to regulate emissions — it just wants cash for past and future repair costs, emergency services, and property damage. But University of Virginia law professor Sai Prakash, who filed a brief supporting the energy companies, told NPR that logic doesn't hold: if Boulder can attach liability to two companies, "I think it can attach liability to thousands of others as well."
The companies are swinging for the fences. Dennis Fan, who runs Columbia Law School's Appellate Litigation Clinic and filed an amicus brief in the case, told The Guardian the industry is "going for the grand slam" — if they win on federal preemption grounds, "there will never, ever be climate change litigation again."
What makes the case unusual is that the Supreme Court agreed to hear it before the state case has even gone to trial. Fan called that "an incredibly weird thing to have happen." The justices will decide whether they even have jurisdiction to take the case at this stage, and if so, whether federal law preempts Boulder's state-court claims.
The companies point to the Clean Air Act and century-old Supreme Court decisions to argue a "federal common law" governs cross-state environmental suits. But as Fan noted, they've had "a little bit of difficulty identifying exactly what that source of federal law is" — especially since the Clean Air Act explicitly says states and local governments have primary responsibility for air pollution control at its source.
NPR framed the case as a question of "whether corporations should be held to the same standards that all of us are." The Guardian called it "big oil's bid to block climate damage lawsuits." Neither outlet spent much time on who ultimately pays when energy companies get hit with billion-dollar judgments — the consumer.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity — a group backing these lawsuits — told NPR the case is about whether companies that conceal harm should "help clean up that harm." Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University's Scalia Law School, cut to the real stakes: "This is about whether a bunch of rich hippies in Boulder County are allowed to dictate environment and energy policy to the entire rest of the world."
If the Court sides with Boulder, the trial-bar and green NGOs will have a permanent funding mechanism carved out of the energy sector. If the Court sides with the companies, the climate-lawsuit machine loses its engine. Either way, the decision will shape who writes energy policy in this country — elected legislators or tort lawyers.
