Supreme Court Hears Oil Companies' Bid to Avoid Colorado Climate Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term by hearing arguments in a case where oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are seeking to block a climate change lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado. The lawsuit accuses the companies of state law violations and seeks monetary damages for harms attributed to climate change.

Exxon, based in the U.S., and Suncor, based in Canada, are appealing a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that permitted Boulder's lawsuit to advance. The Trump administration has supported the oil companies, contending that federal authority over air pollution regulation supersedes Boulder's claims.

"This case involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct," Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney representing the oil companies, told the justices. He argued that the Constitution prohibits the use of state law in areas preempted by federal regulation, especially concerning inherently federal matters like air and water pollution.

Shanmugam asserted that for over a century, the Supreme Court has maintained that federal law governs interstate pollution claims, a principle he believes applies even more strongly to claims involving global climate change. Boulder's lawsuit, he explained, is based on the theory that the companies' global activities increased fossil fuel use, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global climate change, and resulting in global harms.

![Environmental activists holding signs that read "The People v. Big Oil" outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building.]( "Environmental activists holding signs that read "The People v. Big Oil" outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building.")

The city and county of Boulder allege that Exxon and Suncor have contributed to climate change and misled the public about the risks associated with fossil fuels. The municipality aims to hold the companies financially responsible for past and future costs related to climate change, including expenses for infrastructure repair, environmental remediation, public health, and emergency management.

The burning of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, which trap heat and contribute to rising global temperatures. According to Exxon and Suncor, nearly 60 state and local governments have filed similar lawsuits seeking billions of dollars from fossil fuel companies, with more expected. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the companies could lead to the dismissal of many of these cases.

This case is one of several significant matters the Supreme Court is set to hear this term, which also includes cases on Trump's immigration policies and state bans on assault-style rifles. The arguments on Monday represent a recent instance of energy companies asking the court to limit climate-related liability or federal environmental regulation.

Advocates for the oil companies argue that allowing Boulder's broad claims to proceed could grant states excessive authority over actions that occur far beyond their borders. For the past two decades, energy companies and their allies have had a largely successful record before the Supreme Court in cases concerning climate liability and the scope of federal environmental regulations.

Exxon and Suncor also contend that Boulder's lawsuit infringes upon an area regulated by the federal government and specifically the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from this case. Financial disclosure forms indicate that Alito owns stock in several oil and gas companies, though not Exxon or Suncor.

The court's decision in this matter is anticipated by the end of June. Earlier on Monday, the court declined to hear appeals in several other cases, including one involving real estate platform Zillow Group and another concerning antitrust challenges against Nexstar Media Group.