From Slate Magazine · James Goodwin, Daniel Walters · · 3m
Supreme Court Tests Oil Industry's Climate Case
Conservative justices face oil industry's climate lawsuit challenge.
In brief
Conservative justices face oil industry's climate lawsuit challenge. The Supreme Court's Suncor v. Boulder County case tests conservative justices' willingness to grant oil companies blanket immunity from climate damage lawsuits. Originally reported by Slate Magazine.
Supreme Court's pro-business bias
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court has become infamous for its pro-business bias, as conservative justices authored opinions like Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Oil industry's deep antipathy
The recent disclosure of shadow docket papers reveals a deep antipathy to environmental and climate regulation even among some of the court’s supposedly more moderate conservatives.
Suncor v. Boulder County case
Boulder County sued oil majors in state court for local damages caused by their climate-changing business, seeking nearly blanket immunity from liability.
Oil industry's legal strategy
The defendants pursued strategies to dismiss the case, including arguing federal law preempts the legal claims raised in the lawsuit.
Colorado Supreme Court decision
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the federal preemption argument, prompting the companies to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
High stakes for climate
The bill for climate damages is racking up quickly, with Donald Trump’s federal government acknowledging the increasing pace of $100 billion climate disasters.
Climate damage lawsuits
Boulder County does not stand alone; thousands of communities face uncompensated damages from oil companies’ activities.
Historical precedent
Courts have previously held tobacco and opioid manufacturers accountable through private litigation, despite lacking adequate legislative or regulatory responses.
Oil industry's constitutional argument
The oil industry argues climate change is a uniquely interstate issue, making it practically impossible for any single state’s courts to take meaningful policy action without unduly interfering with other states.
Gorsuch's prior ruling
In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected an expansive reading of the dormant commerce clause, upholding California regulations governing industrial poultry operations.
Conservative principles
Gorsuch’s opinion demonstrates skepticism of non-textual, judge-made constitutional law and the protection of state power, principles that cut against the oil industry’s arguments.
Clean Air Act challenge
The oil industry argues the Clean Air Act implicitly preempts climate damage lawsuits by establishing a comprehensive regulatory scheme for greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump administration stance
The Trump administration recently disclaimed any authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, weakening the oil industry’s implied preemption argument.
Virginia Uranium precedent
In Virginia Uranium v. Warren, the court rejected the argument that a federal law establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for uranium preempts state bans on uranium mining.
Alito's recusal
Justice Samuel Alito’s late decision to recuse himself from the case despite financial conflicts may make a pro-climate decision slightly more likely.
Oral arguments significance
The oral arguments in Suncor will be closely watched to determine whether conservative justices lean against federal preemption or avoid ruling on merits by finding lack of jurisdiction.
The main idea
The Supreme Court's Suncor v. Boulder County case tests conservative justices' willingness to grant oil companies blanket immunity from climate damage lawsuits.
