SCOTUS Appears Divided in Major Climate Case

The Supreme Court grappled Monday with whether local governments can sue oil and gas companies in state court to help cover costs associated with climate change, an issue with potentially billions of dollars at stake. Key justices appeared wary about the potential sweep of litigation, but torn over the complex questions of federal and state law raised by the case, the AP reports. NBC News describes the justices as "stumped," with the lack of consensus suggesting the court might dismiss the case, allowing it to play out in lower courts.

• Officials in Boulder argue their lawsuit is an attempt to hold energy companies Suncor and ExxonMobil accountable for their contributions to climate change. They say that worsening disasters such as floods and wildfires put a heavy financial burden on local communities, and the industry should bear part of that cost.
• The city and county of Boulder first sued the oil companies in 2018, years before the 2021 Marshall Fire destroyed nearly 1,100 homes and left two people dead. Total damage was estimated at $2 billion, the costliest wildfire in Colorado history.

The companies say that a flurry of lawsuits in state courts is not the way to deal with the global issue. Governments from largely blue-leaning areas around the country have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages that could total billions of dollars, part of a wave of legal action worldwide. "Presumably, if you prevail, the next day, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "How do you think that will work out on the ground?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh said a win by Boulder could bankrupt the oil companies and other potential defendants. "I mean, anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this. Any manufacturer, any business,'' he said.

• Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, representing the industry, said the Boulder case was attempting to use the courts to decide a public policy issue that is properly up to Congress and other elected officials. "Climate change is certainly one of the most pressing issues" facing the country, but the lawsuit "is exactly the wrong way to go about" addressing it, he said.

.

• Suncor and Exxon argue that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government—not the states—the power to regulate emissions. They have the support of the Trump administration, which argues the lawsuits are an unconstitutional attempt to regulate planet-warming emissions and impose Colorado's state law beyond its borders.
• But Roberts and other justices pointed out that state courts consider lawsuits about a myriad of issues that have nationwide reach. "I guess I'm not quite sure what makes this situation different from those," Roberts said. Justice Elena Kagan compared the climate case to previous state-based lawsuits against the tobacco industry and opioid makers. "This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actor," Kagan said, per the Washington Post.
• The court is also weighing a jurisdictional question that could allow it an "off-ramp" to avoid deciding the issues right away. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed like a vote in favor of that path. "Why shouldn't we wait and hear all of these claims once the state courts are done?" she asked. The court's involvement in the case, she said, is "kind of premature."
• The case was heard without Justice Samuel Alito, who recused himself just a week before arguments after facing calls to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. That raises the possibility of a tie vote. A deadlock would leave in place a decision from Colorado's highest court allowing the case to proceed.