US Supreme Court to hear arguments in climate suit that threatens to cost consumers billions

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear a case brought by oil companies facing a lawsuit in Colorado that seeks compensation for damages allegedly caused by climate change. In 2018, the city and county of Boulder filed a lawsuit seeking damages from weather events, which they allege are caused by burning fossil fuels. They also accuse the oil companies of deceiving the public about the dangers of climate change. The companies had sought to have the case dismissed in state court, but the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed in Colorado courts. The companies are asking the Supreme Court to overturn that decision.
Boulder’s lawsuit is but one of dozens of climate lawsuits that are part of a climate advocacy campaign, which many experts argue is aimed at enacting climate policy through the court system in order to circumnavigate legislatures, which are reluctant to ban fossil fuels. 
The well-funded effort extends beyond the courts into judicial training on the science of climate change, the media and scientific research. 
The Boulder case is being closely watched, and it’s not just the oil and gas industry. If successful, the settlements would cost oil companies billions of dollars, which would then be passed onto consumers. And it wouldn’t stop there. The theories put forth by the plaintiffs could easily apply to any industry with significant greenhouse gas emissions, including utilities and manufacturers. 
“Supreme Court review will bring much-needed clarity and uniformity to this issue and help ensure that fundamental policy decisions about energy and climate are made by the appropriate branches of government. We look forward to the Court’s consideration of these critical questions,” Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, said in a statement. 
Change in administration 
In their petition to the Supreme Court, Sunoco Energy Inc. and ExxonMobil Corporation argue that the Constitution doesn’t allow for government entities to sue under state laws regarding public nuisance and consumer fraud for injuries alleged to have been caused by pollution coming from sources outside the state. Greenhouse gases do not stop at state lines.
The Clean Air Act, they argue, preempts state law, and they’re asking the Supreme Court to clarify if state law can be used to seek damages from the global issue of climate change.
Last year, the high court had declined to grant certiorari, as it’s called, in another climate lawsuit, but that was before the election of President Donald Trump. 
In 2020, Honolulu filed its own climate lawsuit against Sunoco, Exxon and other energy companies, arguing the same points in the Boulder suit. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected the oil companies’ request to dismiss the suit, and the defendants asked the high court to review the decision. 
In the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court asked the Biden administration’s Justice Department to weigh in on the matter. Then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar submitted briefs the following December, arguing that the justices should reject the appeal from energy companies and allow the cases to play out in state courts before the high court reviews them, which the high court ultimately decided to do. 
Nationwide significance
The Trump administration’s DOJ took a different position on the issue in its “friend of the court” brief in the Boulder case than the previous administration. The Trump administration argues that the state court’s decision “is manifestly wrong on a question of vast nationwide significance,” and it conflicts with both the Constitution and the Clean Air Act. 
John Shu, a legal scholar who served in both Bush administrations, told Just the News in December that the current makeup of the court would be more likely amenable to the idea that any issues with greenhouse gases, which are a global problem, is a matter of the interstate commerce clause and more the jurisdiction of Congress than individual state tort systems. 
It does appear that the Supreme Court is now ready to weigh in on the matter. In its decision Monday, the court also asked the parties to argue whether the Supreme Court is the correct jurisdiction to hear the case. 
In their petition, Suncor and Exxon argue that the Supreme Court has recognized for over a century that the Constitution doesn’t permit states to seek relief under state law for injuries suffered from pollution emanating from outside the state. 
“This case presents the question of whether that longstanding principle precludes the state-law claims in the nationwide climate-change litigation. The answer to that question is surely yes,” the companies argue. 
No victories at the state level
Some of the climate lawsuits have moved through state courts, and so far, the governments filing them haven’t seen any victories. Judges have dismissed climate lawsuits filed by Bucks County, Pennsylvania, the state of New Jersey, the state of Delaware, and in Anne Arundel County and the city of Annapolis, in Maryland. A case filed by the city of Baltimore, Maryland, was also tossed. 
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd concurred with the oil companies’ arguments that the state’s complaint is preempted by federal law. 
Maryland’s Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Steve Platt reached a similar conclusion with the case filed by the county and Annapolis. In his ruling, he cited the ruling by Maryland Senior Judge Videtta Brown, who dismissed the climate lawsuit filed by Baltimore, concluding that state law cannot address a global issue like climate change. 
Energy companies have long sought to have these cases moved to federal courts, and now the Supreme Court will consider if that’s where they belong. 

Read Full Article: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/supreme-court-hear-arguments-climate-suit-threatens-cost-consumers-billions?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators