Supreme Court expresses skepticism towards state lawsuits against oil producers for climate change damages

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism on Monday regarding state lawsuits that could impose significant damage awards on energy producers for the impacts of global climate change. Several justices indicated that these state claims might be precluded by the federal Clean Air Act. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh stated, "Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise." Justice Elena Kagan concurred, noting that state lawsuits could interfere with how Congress has chosen to regulate greenhouse gases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about whether states like Colorado could impose regulations on other states, asking, "What if Colorado passed a law purporting to cap emissions in the other 49 states?" The court is considering whether cities and states can sue oil and gas producers for damages related to climate change. California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have initiated such claims, but none have proceeded to trial. Republican-led states and the Trump administration have opposed these lawsuits. The outcome of the Colorado case could influence California’s 2023 lawsuit against the five largest oil companies and similar litigation. The justices debated whether these lawsuits fall under state or federal jurisdiction. Justice Samuel A. Alito recused himself from the case, likely due to stock ownership in oil companies that could be affected by the ruling. Without him, the court risks a 4-4 split, which would prevent a decision. The arguments on Monday suggested the possibility of a conservative majority ruling to block the climate-change lawsuits. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County could sue for damages in local court, asserting that oil producers are a "public nuisance." In February, the justices agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry, supported by the Trump administration, which argued that the Constitution and federal law do not permit such claims to be resolved in local courts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts expressed skepticism about allowing numerous municipalities to file lawsuits, questioning the practical implications of such actions. The justices deliberated on whether federal law limits these lawsuits or if states can pursue damages for the harm they have experienced. They did not indicate a clear outcome, leaving open the possibility of allowing the suits to proceed in state courts. Kannon Shanmugam, representing the oil and gas companies, warned that if Boulder’s claims were allowed to proceed, it could empower approximately 90,000 municipalities to influence national and international energy policy through jury-imposed damages on fossil-fuel producers. Attorney Kevin Russell, representing Boulder, acknowledged that Congress could impose limits on state lawsuits but has not done so, arguing that the court should not create new limits to favor a powerful industry. Judges nationwide have been divided on this issue, with some ruling that federal law preempts state lawsuits. Justice Clarence Thomas has frequently voted against claims that federal law blocks states from pursuing their own regulations. Some legal experts believe the oil industry may struggle to win this case without both Thomas and Alito, but a tie vote could lead to a significant setback for the oil industry, allowing climate-change lawsuits to proceed for the time being.