A landmark legal battle over who should pay for the costs of climate change reached the nation’s highest court Monday, with no clear answer in sight. The Supreme Court opened its new term by hearing arguments in a case that could determine whether oil companies can be held financially responsible for the effects of climate change — and the justices themselves seemed uncertain about how to rule.
The case centers on a lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, alleging the companies misled consumers about how their products contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related damage. Boulder officials argue they have faced rising costs tied to climate impacts, including wildfire prevention efforts. Colorado has seen extreme heat, drought, and multiple fires just this past summer.
The outcome, however, won’t just affect Boulder. More than two dozen similar lawsuits filed by cities and counties across the country are waiting to see how the Supreme Court rules before their own cases can move forward.
A Court Divided — and Short-Handed
The justices heard arguments with only eight members on the bench. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case last week without explaining why. Liberal advocacy groups had long called for his removal, pointing to his ownership of stocks in other oil companies that could benefit from a ruling favoring Exxon and Suncor. That recusal was a reversal — the court had told NBC News in May there was no reason for him to step aside. With only eight justices, the court could split 4-4, which would leave the underlying legal questions unresolved while allowing the Boulder case to proceed.
During oral arguments, the justices pushed hard on both sides without signaling a clear consensus. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about the potential flood of litigation that could follow if Boulder’s case moves forward.
“Just to make sure I have a correct understanding. Presumably, if you prevail, the next day a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit,”
Roberts told Boulder’s lawyer, Kevin Russell.
Roberts also appeared skeptical of the nature of the lawsuit itself, suggesting it looked less like a consumer protection case and more like what he called
“an effort to reduce emissions.”
At the same time, he acknowledged to the oil companies’ attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, that state lawsuits against out-of-state companies over harmful products are a well-established legal practice.
Comparisons to Tobacco and Opioids
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan drew a comparison between the Boulder lawsuit and the wave of successful litigation against tobacco companies and opioid manufacturers. But she also raised a key question: could the federal Clean Air Act, which Congress enacted to regulate air emissions nationwide, legally block Boulder’s state-level claims? She called such a ruling potentially
“the more natural and simpler route”
if the court sides with the energy companies.
The oil companies’ lawyer pushed for an even broader ruling — one that would declare state-level climate lawsuits unconstitutional. But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, noting that the Boulder lawsuit doesn’t actually seek to cap emissions.
“The Clean Air Act does not regulate marketing or advertising of fuel, correct?”
she said.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the most vocal in supporting the oil companies’ position. He cited multiple court precedents he described as
“crystal clear”
that air and water pollution fall under federal jurisdiction, not state law.
“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel because we’ve said this multiple times,”
Kavanaugh added.
Exxon and Suncor deny the allegations entirely and have warned that if these lawsuits are allowed to go to trial, energy companies could face damages running into the billions of dollars. They also argue that climate change is a national and international issue that state courts are not equipped to handle.
Federal Politics Loom Over the Case
The case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The Trump administration filed a brief backing Exxon and Suncor, and has separately been working to roll back federal greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. That ongoing legal battle created a complication the justices couldn’t ignore.
“I think it is difficult to decide whether the Clean Air Act preempts these claims when we don’t know whether the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse-gas emissions when the EPA is saying it lacks the statutory authority to do that,”
Russell told the justices.
The dynamic reflects a broader political fight: with the Trump administration dismantling Obama- and Biden-era climate policies and blocking renewable energy projects — with President Trump calling climate change a
“hoax”
— state courts have become a primary battleground for climate accountability. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling already shut down certain federal court climate claims against energy companies, pushing advocates toward state-level legal strategies.
Adding another layer of controversy: a chapter on climate science in a widely used federal judges’ reference manual was abruptly pulled this year after conservatives accused its authors of having a conflict of interest. Some critics also called for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from Monday’s case because she wrote a foreword to that manual. She later said she had not even read the climate chapter.
The Boulder case was the first argued as the court began its nine-month term. Other major cases already scheduled include a challenge to bans on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and two cases involving the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies. Watch Supreme Court arguments on the climate change case and get more news coverage as the term unfolds.
Comments are closed.