<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/news/supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> appeared split over whether to allow Boulder County, Colorado’s <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/climate-change/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">climate-change</a> damages lawsuit against oil companies to proceed, with the justices expressing reservations about both sides’ arguments during Monday’s hearing.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The high court heard oral arguments in <em><a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4745947/supreme-court-states-ability-sue-oil-gas-firms-climate-change/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County</a></em> regarding whether Boulder County can hold oil companies accountable for their alleged role in global climate change. The outcome of this case could significantly impact similar lawsuits that climate activists and Democrat-led jurisdictions have attempted to bring against <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/oil/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">oil companies</a>, potentially allowing them to proceed or blocking them under federal law.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Suncor lawyer Kannon Shanmugam argued that Boulder’s lawsuit should be dismissed because the Clean Air Act grants the federal government jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/constitution/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Constitution</a> does not permit states to regulate matters beyond their borders. Shanmugam emphasized the constitutional argument, which led to questions from some justices.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether pollution caused in one state could be subject to another state’s laws if it directly harms that state. Several justices also inquired why Shanmugam did not solely argue that the Clean Air Act precludes the lawsuit, which they noted would align better with the court’s precedents.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, representing the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/department-of-justice/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Department of Justice</a>, faced similar scrutiny regarding the constitutional basis for dismissing the lawsuit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why previous rulings on the Clean Air Act, which assert that <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/air-pollution/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">air pollution</a> is a federal matter, do not support her argument for dismissing the Boulder lawsuit. Harris asserted that both constitutional and Clean Air Act arguments could independently justify a ruling in favor of Suncor.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Several justices expressed concerns about the broad implications of Boulder’s arguments for future climate change lawsuits. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Russell, the lawyer for Boulder, about the limiting principles for lawsuits related to climate change damages.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Roberts raised concerns about the potential for other cities and states to replicate Boulder’s lawsuit, leading to numerous challenges against oil companies regarding global climate change without clear limitations.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“There’s always going to be greenhouse gas emissions affecting every state. So it’s not as if anything other than your litigation is going to address it. So as a practical matter, what should happen?” Roberts asked.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Monday’s oral arguments featured an eight-justice bench, as Justice Samuel Alito <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4745497/justice-alito-recuses-supreme-court-climate-change-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">recused himself</a> from the case last week, citing financial interests in oil companies. The absence of Alito raises the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock, which would leave the case unresolved.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The eight-justice panel did not appear fully convinced by Suncor and the DOJ’s arguments that Boulder’s lawsuit is constitutionally barred, but a majority seemed open to dismissing the county’s lawsuit based on the Clean Air Act’s preemption of Colorado state law.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <em>Suncor</em> case was the first heard by the Supreme Court in its new term, with a ruling expected as soon as early 2027.</p>