The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a case that could decide whether a single Colorado county can drag the oil industry into state court over global climate change — a lawsuit the Trump administration is fighting alongside the energy companies.
At issue is Boulder County v. Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. Local officials in Boulder say the companies misled consumers about the climate impact of their products and should pay billions in damages for costs tied to wildfires, drought and extreme heat. The companies argue emissions are a national and international issue that belongs in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out.
Eight justices debated for nearly two hours over a key procedural gate: who decides, and where. Justice Samuel Alito sat out after recusing himself last week — following calls for him to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. Fox News noted the stock holdings do not include the two companies at the center of Monday's appeal.
Alito's absence raises the possibility of a 4-4 tie. That outcome would let the Boulder case proceed in state courts while leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a potential deciding vote, questioned both sides. He pointed out the Court has allowed state courts to hear cases before when out-of-state conduct has broad effects elsewhere.
"There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states, and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation," Roberts said, according to Fox News. "I guess I'm not quite sure what makes this situation different from all those other ones, where we've allowed them to proceed in state court."
Roberts also pressed Boulder's lawyer on how many more municipalities would file suit if the county prevails, asking whether "the next day a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit," as NBC News reported.
Justice Elena Kagan framed the case as legal déjà vu — the same kind of suit, against the same kind of defendants, for the same kind of harm. "Where does this principle come from, that states can't regulate in the air and water space?" she asked, per Fox News.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to channel several of his conservative colleagues on the practical fallout of letting multi-jurisdictional climate suits proceed, Fox News reported — though it was unclear after the public session how the Court might rule.
The stakes are enormous. More than two dozen similar lawsuits have been filed by cities and counties across the country, and companies warn that allowing them to reach trial could trigger damages in the billions. The Trump administration has sided with Suncor and ExxonMobil, arguing the litigation amounts to a backdoor power grab aimed at imposing emissions regulations Congress never enacted, according to the Associated Press.
Boulder officials point to this summer's extreme heat, drought and multiple fires in Colorado as evidence of the escalating costs they face. The county's claims are brought under state law, not federal environmental statutes — a distinction at the heart of the jurisdictional fight.
The climate case is just the first act of a term that will also put the Second Amendment in the spotlight. Roughly a dozen states have banned semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, and challengers argue those bans violate the Constitution. The Court will hear that case in December. Religious liberty and President Trump's immigration enforcement are also on the docket, the AP reported.
Justice Alito's recusal in the climate dispute means the Court could act without its full nine members on one of the most consequential energy cases in years.
Our Take
Here's what Boulder County is actually trying to do: turn a local courthouse into a national climate regulator. If a county can sue oil companies under state law for the global effects of fossil fuels, then every county in America can do the same — and energy policy will be decided by juries instead of by Congress and the president. That's not environmentalism. That's a litigation roadshow designed to do through the courts what voters have never approved at the ballot box.
The Trump administration understands this. That's why it's backing Suncor and ExxonMobil, and why Chief Justice Roberts' question about a flood of copycat lawsuits cuts to the heart of the matter. One county wins, and the next day every municipality in the country becomes a plaintiff. The only winners are trial lawyers. The losers are American families paying more at the pump and on their electric bills.
Conservatives should also be honest about Alito's recusal. The justice did the right thing by stepping aside from a case involving stock he owns, but his absence hands the Court a possible 4-4 tie, and a tie lets Boulder move forward. The left gets its day in state court without the Supreme Court ever saying whether that's legal.
The Constitution reserves national policy for the national government. Climate change is the definition of a national and international issue — the companies are right, and so is the administration. If the Court forces this square peg into state courts, watch for the next lawsuits: gun makers over crime, fast food chains over obesity, tech companies over screen time. Where does it end, folks? Probably nowhere — and that's exactly the point.
