The Supreme Court will hear a landmark case challenging whether oil companies can be held liable in state courts for their contribution to climate change. The decision, expected to have far-reaching consequences, could significantly alter the landscape of climate litigation across the United States.
The Core Dispute: State vs. Federal Jurisdiction
The lawsuit originates from Boulder, Colorado, where city and county officials filed suit against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018. The plaintiffs argue that the companies should bear financial responsibility for damages incurred due to climate-related impacts, citing existing state laws. The oil giants, however, contend that such cases fall under federal jurisdiction due to the global nature of greenhouse gas emissions.
This jurisdictional battle is crucial. If the Supreme Court sides with the oil companies, it would effectively shield them from state-level lawsuits, forcing all climate litigation into federal courts – where industry interests may have greater sway.
A Wave of Climate Litigation
The Boulder case is not isolated. Over the past decade, roughly three dozen similar lawsuits have been filed by state, local, and tribal governments nationwide. These suits seek financial compensation for climate-related expenses, such as infrastructure damage from extreme weather events. Some also accuse oil companies of deceptive practices, alleging they knowingly concealed the risks associated with fossil fuels.
Despite the growing number of cases, none have yet reached a full trial. The oil industry has aggressively fought to move these suits to federal courts, arguing that climate change is a matter of national – not state – concern. The Supreme Court previously declined to intervene in similar cases, but recent pressure from industry groups and the Trump administration prompted a reconsideration.
High Stakes for the Energy Sector
The stakes are immense. Oil companies fear that successful climate lawsuits could result in billions of dollars in damages, potentially destabilizing the U.S. energy sector. Critics argue this is a scare tactic, designed to protect profits at the expense of communities already suffering from climate impacts.
Conservative legal scholars have openly advocated for the court to shut down these cases, framing them as “environmental extortion.” The Justice Department under the Trump administration even sued states like Hawaii and Michigan to block their climate litigation efforts.
This case is not just about legal jurisdiction. It’s about the fundamental question of who bears the cost of climate change. If oil companies are immune from state-level accountability, the burden will fall disproportionately on local communities and taxpayers.
The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether state courts can serve as a meaningful avenue for climate justice, or if the energy industry will remain largely shielded from financial repercussions. The outcome is expected to shape climate policy and litigation strategies for years to come.
