The Supreme Court will begin its new term on Monday by hearing arguments regarding whether the oil and gas industry can be held liable for damages linked to climate change, including heat waves, wildfires, and droughts. This issue has been pending for nearly a decade. In 2023, California joined over two dozen states and municipalities in suing five major oil companies, claiming they have misled the public about the dangers of climate change for decades. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that these companies have 'privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment.'
These lawsuits are similar to past claims against the tobacco and opioid industries for concealing risks associated with their products. However, progress has been slow, with courts divided on whether these claims should be adjudicated in federal or state courts and under which laws. In a notable ruling last year, Boulder County, Colorado, received a 5-2 decision from its state Supreme Court allowing its lawsuit to proceed as a public nuisance claim, which does not rely on legislative approval.
California's lawsuit alleges a 'decades-long campaign of deception' by the oil companies regarding climate change and fossil fuel risks. The Colorado court ruled that federal anti-pollution laws do not preempt the state’s claims for damages related to greenhouse gas emissions. However, dissenting judges argued that Boulder County is overstepping by attempting to regulate energy policy. The oil companies, appealing to the Supreme Court, argued that allowing such claims could lead to a patchwork of regulations across the country.
The Trump administration has also supported the oil companies, arguing that allowing states to impose their regulations could undermine the federal system. The Supreme Court will decide if federal law prevents state law claims regarding the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Legal experts suggest that the oil companies' arguments for federal protection may be weak.
UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho noted that neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides a shield against these claims. The outcome of the Supreme Court case remains uncertain, especially after Justice Samuel A. Alito withdrew from the case due to potential conflicts of interest. A tie vote in the court could affirm Boulder County's victory without setting a precedent.
In addition to this case, the Supreme Court will address significant issues related to immigration and gun rights in its new term. The court is set to hear arguments on the Trump administration's immigration policies, including mandatory detention and third-country removals, as well as challenges to state laws prohibiting the sale of semiautomatic rifles.
David G. Savage has reported on the Supreme Court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times since 1986.