US Supreme Court to Hear Big Oil’s Bid to Toss Climate Suits

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have implications for dozens of deception lawsuits that have been filed by municipalities and local governments around the country in recent years.

—

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a key climate deception lawsuit against Big Oil, marking the first time the court weighs in on such a case.

The lawsuit was filed in 2018 by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado. They sought damages from two major oil companies – Suncor Energy USA and ExxonMobil Corporation – for the climate change-related damages they sustained, which they argue were exacerbated by the companies. The claimants estimated that it would cost Boulder taxpayers some $100 million until 2050 to adapt the local infrastructure to the escalating impacts of climate change, including storms and more frequent wildfires.

Boulder also argued that the oil companies misled the public about the risks of climate change and knowingly contributed to it by producing and promoting more fossil fuels. Both companies deny wrongdoing.

“Communities like ours are exposed to destructive climate change impacts caused by the actions of fossil fuel companies while they reap record profits,” said Ashley Stolzmann, Boulder County Commissioner. “These companies need to pay their fair share to deal with the climate chaos they’ve created and take responsibility for the climate impacts.”

Last May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the case could proceed toward trial, upholding a state court’s previous ruling that concluded federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims, contrary to what the defendants had argued. In response to that ruling, Suncor Energy and Exxon appealed to the US Supreme Court, urging it to dismiss the case based on that same argument: that climate emissions are a matter of national concern and must therefore be adjudicated in federal court – where similar litigation has historically been dismissed.

On Monday, the justices agreed to review the state’s supreme court ruling. In granting the petition, the justices also asked the parties whether the court has the authority to hear the case.

“Two state supreme courts have ruled on this issue and both have rejected Exxon’s baseless arguments. No part of the Constitution, or any state or federal law, gives corporations the right to lie to the public about the dangers associated with their products simply because those products are fossil fuels,” said Alyssa Johl, Vice President of Legal and General Counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity.

“Today’s announcement makes clear the justices do not agree whether the Court even has the authority to hear Boulder’s case at this time. The Court should uphold what the Colorado Supreme Court and others have made clear: communities like Boulder have the right to seek accountability in their state courts when corporations have knowingly caused local harms,” Johl added. 

The US Supreme Court Justices. There is a six-justice majority of Republican appointees on the current court. Photo: Fred Schilling via Wikimedia Commons.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected within the nine-month term that starts in October, will likely have implications for dozens of deception lawsuits that have been filed around the country in recent years.

Should the justices rule against the oil companies, it would offer a favorable precedent for numerous ongoing deception lawsuits and for new ones to be filed by municipalities and local governments. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the oil companies would severely threaten these efforts, potentially invalidating over a dozen other active lawsuits based on similar legal arguments.

According to L. Delta Merner, Lead Scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, “[f]ossil fuel companies have repeatedly tried to derail cases by forcing them into federal court, invoking preemption arguments, and delaying discovery.” But recent rulings by state supreme courts and federal judges that allowed deception cases to proceed have begun to crack the defensive wall, Merner added.

You might also like: Paris Court Hears Arguments in Climate Case Against TotalEnergies