The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments this fall in a landmark case to determine whether local and state governments can sue fossil fuel companies for climate-related disaster costs.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The case, Suncor v. Boulder, will be heard on Oct. 5, when the court returns from summer recess. The decision\u2014which will likely come months after the case is heard\u2014will set a precedent for some two dozen other climate accountability cases that have been brought forward by states, counties, and cities.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis lawsuit is really about ensuring that corporations that have caused harm pay their fair share, rather than the burden being on the public and local governments for escalating climate impacts,\u201d says Nikki Reisch, director of the climate and energy program at the Center for International Environmental Law.<\/p>\n
Fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas are the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for around 68% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Major fossil fuel companies have long known\u2014and sometimes hidden\u2014the role their products have had in fueling the climate crisis. With climate change intensifying the impact of natural disasters, states and local governments are now facing billions of dollars in climate change-driven damages\u2014and seeking accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The case set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court will determine which government body is able to take action on these types of climate lawsuits. \u201cThe main issue is whether state courts have the power to issue money damages over climate change, or whether that's exclusively a matter of federal law that has to be decided by federal courts or by Congress or the president,\u201d says Michael Gerrard, founder of Columbia University\u2019s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.<\/p>\n
In May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the city of Boulder had the legal authority to hold energy companies accountable for local damage caused by climate change and could make a case against polluters. The U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether local governments have the authority to seek damages from fossil fuel companies\u2014but will hear the case before the accountability lawsuit has gone to trial in Boulder, which could create an opening for the federal case to be sent back to Colorado. \u201cIt is possible that the Supreme Court will rule that this case is too early\u2026because there hasn't been a trial yet,\u201d says Gerrard.<\/p>\n
The case comes as the Trump Administration continues to target climate action on the state and federal level. Last April, President Trump signed an executive order to \u201cstop the enforcement of State laws\u201d on climate change, with a particular focus on California, New York, and Vermont. He has also struck five deals worth roughly $3.9 billion to block offshore wind projects, with the companies instead investing in fossil fuel projects. Justice Samuel Alito has also come under fire for refusing to recuse himself from the Suncor case, despite his financial investments in fossil fuel companies. (Alito is not personally invested in either of the companies named in the lawsuit.)<\/p>\n
In a May statement to NBC News, a court spokesperson said that \u201cJustice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party\u201d involved in the case, and the court\u2019s legal counsel advised that \u201chis recusal is not required.\u201d<\/p>\n
Several major insurance trade groups also submitted a friend-of-the-Court brief in support of the fossil fuel company defendants.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou would think that insurance companies that are on the front lines of witnessing the scale of losses that community members and homeowners are facing would be siding with the majority of their policyholders, who have a stake in seeing the responsible parties bear the cost of climate losses,\u201d says Reisch. \u201cBut instead, we saw them basically acting as a mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry and sounding the alarm that cases like this will somehow make it more difficult for energy companies, and particularly fossil fuel companies, to obtain liability insurance.\u201d<\/p>\n
A win for the plaintiffs could pave the way for local authorities to seek compensation from the biggest emitters. \u201cIf the plaintiffs win on the issue that it's within the power of state courts to issue money damages against the fossil fuel companies over climate change, then these two two dozen other cases that are pending will move forward, and it may be that other similar cases might be filed around the country,\u201d says Gerrard.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, a loss in the U.S. Supreme Court could put a halt to the many other local cases seeking damages from fossil fuel companies. \u201cIf the Supreme Court were to really narrow and prevent claims like this from going forward, it could have a significant effect on whether other cases, grounded in similar arguments and on similar state law claims, could proceed as well,\u201d says Reisch.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The case\u2019s significance cannot be understated, says Reisch. \u201cThis is the biggest climate-related case that the Supreme Court has heard, and it really goes to fundamental issues of fairness about whether or not communities can hold the companies that have been major drivers of climate change, and contributors to climate harm through the deceptive marketing and [upstream production and sales] of fossil fuel products, \u2026 accountable [for their contributions to] the mounting losses.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
But a loss in court doesn\u2019t mean the fight is over. Experts say they still expect to see cases brought against fossil fuel companies under other legal grounds, as well as cases brought in other countries.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThese lawsuits are one piece of the picture of trying to hold the oil companies accountable for climate change,\u201d says Gerrard. \u201cIt's not the only piece.\u201d<\/p>\n