The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a landmark climate change case brought by Boulder and Boulder County against Big Oil, possibly offering a final word on whether local communities can seek payback for global warming damages through the courts.
The Colorado Supreme Court earlier said communities could at least try, and oil industry executives and conservative lawmakers have demanded a final SCOTUS slap-back of the idea ever since. They predicted a conservative majority would reject the idea that judges can decide who pays for the impacts of global warming.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to review Boulder’s climate lawsuit is a decisive step toward resolving conflicting rulings nationwide and reaffirming that climate policy belongs with elected policymakers — not the courts,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel to the trade group Manufacturers’ Accountability Project. “A 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.”
Boulder and Boulder and San Miguel counties originally sued Suncor and Exxon Mobil in 2018 over their contributions to climate change. The lawsuit followed examples in New York and California, but it was the first instance of the fight moving inland, and a precursor to dozens of lawsuits since. Suncor operates the Commerce City refinery that emits large amounts of carbon dioxide and has also been fined repeatedly by state officials for other pollution violations.
Boulder officials and attorneys said they hoped the Supreme Court justices would hear their case openly, and allow Colorado courts to move forward addressing the issues in what they call a seminal legal conflict.
Boulder attorney Marco Simons, who has been working on the case for years, said they expect early October arguments in front of SCOTUS during the next court term. While many might assume the current court makeup would not want to make it easier for communities to get oil industry reparations for warming, Simons said, a true conservative position should favor states’ rights. Especially when, Simons added, Trump administration moves like repealing the “endangerment finding” on climate change claim there is no federal role in controlling greenhouse gases.
“Our view is that it’s a traditional conservative decision to allow states this authority,” Simons said, in an interview.
“The oil companies have tried every avenue to delay our climate accountability case or move it to an out-of-state court system,” said Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann. “As everyone continues to face rising costs that put budgets under pressure, we must hold oil companies accountable for the significant harm they’ve caused our communities. We move forward with renewed energy and purpose for the next step toward justice.”
“Local communities are living with the mounting costs of climate change. The Supreme Court should affirm Colorado’s right to hold these companies accountable for the harm they have caused in Colorado,” Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett said.
Even if the U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow Boulder’s case to move forward, it would not be a final decision on who pays for climate change. The original case would then go back to Colorado state courts for detailed arguments.
San Miguel County, home to Telluride on the Western Slope, was spun off into a separate lawsuit in Denver County District Court.
Environmental groups said Monday that allowing state and local governments to wield power on climate change issues is more important than ever after a year of Trump administration rollbacks of federal laws and spending meant to combat warming and promote renewable energy.
“Given the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to end federal protections against greenhouse gases, climate liability litigation is essential to holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for its deadly pollution,” said Jason Rylander, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “We have extensive evidence that oil companies’ decades of pollution and deception caused billions in damages from heatwaves, wildfires and storms. State and local governments have every right to demand compensation from the corporations that knowingly caused them harm.”
Simons said, “They can’t have it both ways.” The Trump administration can’t argue that communities have no right to address climate change, while also arguing the Clean Air Act gives no authority to the federal government to do the same.
Both Exxon Mobil and Suncor were chosen as defendants in the original suit, Simons said, because of their fossil fuel products’ outsize contributions to greenhouse gases, and because they both tried to muddy the science about climate change.
Suncor said in a statement Monday, “We welcome the U.S. Supreme Court’s review as an important step toward establishing clarity and consistency on this issue. We remain committed to supporting Colorado’s evolving energy needs for years to come.”