pay

Within a week, two of the three largest cloud computing companies in the world signed 20-year contracts for nuclear electricity. Amazon has taken 690 megawatts from Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland, including 190 megawatts of additional generating capacity expected between 2030 and 2032. Google has signed an agreement that will bring 890 megawatts of additional nuclear capacity into the United States. Constellation is investing more than $4.3bn to upgrade 11 reactors across Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Neither agreement, however, involves building a new nuclear reactor. Rather, they are paying to generate more output from reactors that already exist – some of which are even older than the companies themselves.

A few years ago, such agreements would have seemed inconceivable. Nuclear power had fallen out of favour following accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chornobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. Germany phased out nuclear power, while Japan shut down its reactors after Fukushima, although it has since begun restarting them. In many democratic countries, advocating for nuclear energy became politically difficult.

Today, an undamaged reactor at Three Mile Island is being brought back into service, with Microsoft contracted to buy its output for 20 years. The US Department of Energy is providing up to $4.4bn in loans to support the restart of three shuttered plants, with the aim of restoring about 2.25 gigawatts. Palisades in Michigan, which was closed in 2022, is contracted to be generating again by March 2027. If successful, it would become the first US commercial nuclear plant to restart after entering decommissioning.

What has changed?

The quiet reversal

In the last decade, the industry’s answer to AI’s energy problem was efficiency – things such as better chips, smaller models and smarter cooling seemed appealing and feasible. Industry conferences featured discussions about performance per watt, with modern artificial intelligence (AI) chips performing more computation per unit of electricity than their predecessors.

Yet those efficiency gains did not reduce overall electricity demand. Instead, each gain was quickly put towards something larger. Even when DeepSeek demonstrated that a competitive model could be trained at a fraction of the computing cost many had expected, the result was not a reduction in industry spending. Instead, laboratories continued planning more training runs, models that reason for longer, agents that work continuously in the background, and video generation.

This would not be the first time something like this has happened in history. In 1865, William Jevons observed that more efficient steam engines made Britain burn more coal, not less, because cheaper power created uses that had not existed before. The International Energy Agency estimates that global data centre electricity demand will more than double to around 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, even assuming continued improvements in efficiency.

Hence, the industry has changed strategy – unable to shrink demand, companies are now buying up supply.

The arithmetic of waiting

Money, however, cannot solve every problem quickly.

A new large reactor takes a decade or more from decision to electricity. Tech companies are investing in small modular reactors to power their data centres, although many of these projects are not expected to deliver electricity until the early 2030s. So far, very few of these have been built anywhere in the world. Thus, while reactor restarts and upgrades are the faster option, the “fast option” still means 2027, 2028, 2029, or beyond.

AI capital expenditure, however, does not operate on that same calendar. The chips being installed this year could be overtaken by newer technology long before the 20-year electricity contracts powering them expire. This discrepancy underpins all of these announcements, yet the industry has not addressed the implications if demand weakens while contractual obligations remain.

Who pays in the meantime

This is where the story stops being about technology.

Most of these deals sit inside PJM, the grid operator serving roughly 67 million people across 13 American states and Washington, DC. PJM uses capacity auctions to secure sufficient electricity-generating resources for future demand, with the associated costs ultimately passed on to consumers through their electricity bills. Capacity prices have reached the regulatory price cap in three consecutive auctions. According to the grid operator’s independent market monitor, data centre demand contributed approximately $29.4bn in capacity costs across the four most recent auctions. In the latest auction alone, around $6.3bn of these costs were attributed to data centre demand, including forecasts for facilities that have yet to be built.

In effect, households are already paying higher electricity capacity charges, partly because of projected demand from facilities that may never become operational. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that, by 2028, the typical household within PJM could face an additional $70 per month in electricity costs if current trends continue. These rising costs are also having political consequences. Recent US polling shows growing public dissatisfaction with data centres, with electricity bills among the main concerns. In response, Virginia has established a separate electricity rate class for data centres, Ohio has introduced minimum billing requirements, and Illinois is debating legislation.

The aim of the Google agreement is to tackle this objection. Its underlying principle is that major new electricity consumers should bring additional generation capacity rather than compete with existing users for an already constrained supply. This approach represents a constructive step towards mitigating the pressure that data centres place on electricity systems.

However, the arrangement remains voluntary. In October 2026, US federal regulators rejected most of PJM’s proposal to require large new electricity consumers to provide their own generation capacity. As a consequence, the industry is voluntarily offering a commitment that regulators have so far declined to impose through PJM’s proposed rules. This poses the question: how long will such voluntary commitments remain viable if the costs of fulfilling them begin to rise?

What the Gulf should take from this

For Gulf countries preparing their own AI infrastructure expansion, the US experience offers a warning about the costs of getting these arrangements wrong.

For countries with abundant energy resources, the expansion of AI infrastructure presents a significant opportunity.

Qatar’s sovereign fund has committed to a $20bn joint venture with Brookfield for AI infrastructure, beginning with a first phase of roughly 300 megawatts and potentially expanding to near 1.5 gigawatts. Abu Dhabi is pursuing plans for up to five gigawatts of AI data centre capacity. Saudi Arabia is targeting almost two gigawatts through HUMAIN. The region’s competitive advantage is substantial. As demand for AI computing grows, access to electricity is becoming an increasingly important factor in determining where computing infrastructure is built. The Gulf is well positioned to capitalise on this demand.

However, the scale of the proposed developments warrants scrutiny. If the proposed 1.5-gigawatt build-out is completed in Qatar, it would represent electricity demand equivalent to approximately 12 percent of the country’s installed generating capacity. Electricity allocated to AI infrastructure cannot simultaneously serve other purposes, meaning the opportunity costs of these projects deserve serious consideration.

In the United States, the debate over AI infrastructure is becoming increasingly centred on who ultimately bears the cost of its electricity demands, with many of the major commitments already in place. The Gulf is in a rare position of being able to settle that question first: what the industrial tariff is, who funds the new generation, what happens to the contracts when the hardware ages, and what long-term economic benefits the country would see beyond energy revenues and a limited number of jobs.

While hosting AI infrastructure can generate considerable economic value, the greater strategic opportunity lies in determining the conditions under which that infrastructure operates. For Gulf countries, the opportunity to establish these terms exists now, before large-scale commitments constrain their options.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

They hit you hardest if your income is close to one of the tax thresholds, but anyone who gets a pay rise is affected, as long as you earn enough to pay tax. Only people earning under £12,570 – the personal allowance threshold – pay no income tax.

By 2031 an extra 6.8 million people will be paying tax who wouldn’t have if the personal allowance had not been frozen, the OBR calculates.

The state pension is currently just below the personal allowance threshold, and pensioners looked set to be drawn into paying tax from next April, when the basic state pension rises to £13,036.

However, the chancellor is putting in place a new separate Pension Tax Allowance, which will ensure that low-income pensioners, with income up to the value of the full new state pension, will not pay income tax.

The personal allowance threshold is set for the whole UK, so people in Scotland will also be affected, although other tax bands there vary, external.

National Insurance Contributions (Nics) are levied according to the same thresholds.

The settlement is the second-largest after an $880m ​deal reached by the Archdiocese of Los ​Angeles in 2024.

The Archdiocese of New York has agreed to pay more than $800m to settle the legal claims of about 1,300 survivors of sexual abuse by clergy.

New York Archbishop Ronald Hicks said on Saturday that the settlement will be formally signed on November 6 after an agreement with the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

“We are on the verge of being able to, please God, bring some measure of healing and reconciliation to all victim-survivors,” he wrote in an email sent to his priests and shared by the archdiocese’s news outlet.

“This agreement will also allow the archdiocese to turn its full attention once again to its mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick, caring for the poor and needy, welcoming the stranger, and educating our children,” he added.

According to The New York Times, which broke the story, each of the approximately 1,300 survivors will receive at least $250,000 from the Archdiocese of New York and potentially more depending on the severity of the abuse suffered.

The settlement is the second-largest of its kind after an $880m deal reached by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 2024.

“The unanimous agreement of survivors who filed claims against the Archdiocese of New York marks a powerful moment in the pursuit of justice,” Jeff Anderson, a lawyer representing people who filed more than 1,000 claims against the Catholic Church in New York state, said in a statement.

“Through their courage, sacrifice, and determination, survivors have helped bring about a reckoning and a meaningful step toward accountability.”

Scandals and settlements

The agreement marks the end of years of negotiations with lawyers representing the plaintiffs, as the Catholic Church in the United States has been mired in sexual abuse scandals since the early 2000s.

In the 2000s, media investigations revealed that Catholic priests in the US had committed sexual abuse against thousands of children over several decades, and that church leaders had often covered up these cases or transferred the offending priests instead of reporting them to civil authorities.

Dioceses across the country have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and programmes have been created to compensate survivors without going to trial.

In June, the Archdiocese of San Francisco announced it had reached an agreement to pay $395m to about 530 survivors of sexual abuse committed by its clergy to settle their lawsuits.

Three NFL head coaches were each fined $250,000 Wednesday for their conduct toward game officials. Yet apparently nobody has to whip out a checkbook quite yet.

The fines are on hold and could be rescinded altogether if the coaches behave themselves going forward, according to multiple reports.

The New England Patriots’ Mike Vrabel, the Philadelphia Eagles’ Nick Sirianni and the New York Jets’ Aaron Glenn were hit with the fines, which were put into abeyance pending future interaction with officials.

The NFL did not disclose the specific behavior that prompted the organization to single out those coaches, although all three have had visible sideline beef with officials this season.

Vrabel left the coaching box to confront an official late in the first half of the Patriots’ 29-26 victory over the Buffalo Bills on Oct. 5, losing his cool over a defensive holding call against Patriots’ cornerback Marcus Jones. Vrabel was hit with a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Referee Bill Vinovich said afterward that Vrabel was flagged for using profanity toward an official. Vrabel told reporters that Vinovich “was a little sensitive. I told him it was a terrible — I’m not going to say effing call. I’ve said that 87 times since I’ve been a head coach. It was nothing derogatory.”

A week later, Glenn went on a tirade while surrounded by three officials during the Jets’ victory over the Browns. Sirianni has had several sideline temper tantrums, including one Sept. 28 after Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts was called for intentional grounding.

Troy Vincent, the NFL executive vice president of football operations, told reporters Wednesday at the owners meetings in New York City that sportsmanship was a discussion item. The fines appear to be sending a message that relationships between coaches, game officials and players need to be more civil.

The NFL suspended game officials Jeff Seeman and Adrian Hill on Oct. 5 following separate incidents of unprofessional conduct toward players. Seeman appeared to curse at Arizona Cardinals tight end Trey McBride, and Hill confronted Minnesota Vikings linebacker Eric Wilson after being inadvertently knocked down.

EASYJET is allowing parents to claim back the cost of their baby’s first passport from today.

Simply book an easyJet holiday, use the promo code and the £66.60 will come off the price of the break.

The new initiative starts from today after research showed that almost four in five parents said a baby’s first holiday was a landmark family moment.

Usually when Brits apply for a baby passport online, it costs £66.60 – a paper application sent by post increases the price to £80.

But with the airline, this cost will be paid for by easyJet when families book their next holiday.

Use the promo code FIRSTPASSPORT when making the booking to get the extra discount.

HAPPY HOLLY-DAYS

The 8 UK holiday parks opening for Christmas this year with £6.62pp stays

BAG IT

Cheap summer 2027 holidays you should book NOW for under £60pp – before prices go up

There’s no minimum spend on the holiday and children must be two-years-old or younger at the time of travel.

The offer ends on November 26 at 11pm – for more information, head here.

Stuart Wright, Customer Director at easyJet holidays, said: “Travel has a unique way of bringing families together, and a baby’s very first holiday is often one of those moments parents remember for years to come.

“By covering the cost of a baby’s first passport, we’re helping more families start making those memories that little bit sooner.

“Combined with our great-value packages, family-friendly hotels and thousands of Free Kids Places, it’s another way we’re making family holidays easier and more affordable.”

If you need some inspiration on where to book, easyJet recently announced it would be launching six new routes from UK airports in time for autumn.

One of these flights will be from Newcastle to Fuerteventura which will start on October 25, and operate twice a week – on Thursdays and Sundays.

Easyjet’s Luton-Ljubljana flights start on October 26 three times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

There are 18 new routes launching next summer too with a choice of city breaks to island escapes.

Two of these routes will be to Girona which will be a first for easyJet.

One will take off from Liverpool on March 28 and operate twice a week on Wednesdays and Sundays.

Girona will also take off from Gatwick starting on June 3, operating three times a week on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.

US president has continued to support data centres in advance of midterms, despite growing opposition from Republicans.

United States President Donald Trump has said AI data centres should pay “dividends” to communities, in a shift before the midterm elections.

“If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend’” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday.

The president’s comments come after he doubled down on his support for data centres, a stance seen as one of several political liabilities for Republicans in the run-up to the midterm election, as Trump’s approval rating has hit record lows.

Polls show dismal support for such centres amid concerns about the sprawling complexes’ water and energy use.

In the post, Trump advised companies that they could make the centres popular if they “pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend’.”

“I have watched the process closely, and Data Centers that were highly unpopular in a certain area, have become extremely popular when a financial deal is struck,” he said. “MAKE DEALS, and get them built!!!”

Several top Republican candidates have opposed data centres before the midterm polls, with the issue emerging as an area of rare bipartisan consensus in advance of the November 3 vote.

Republican Senate candidates, including Ken Paxton in Texas, Mike Rogers in Michigan and John Husted in Ohio, have all called for more restrictions and oversight on the centres, in a reversal of earlier positions.

The issue featured prominently in a recent debate in Iowa, where Republican Senate Candidate Ashley Hinson said the local level should decide whether to build AI data centres.

Despite the shifting sentiment, Trump in late August issued an impassioned defence of data centres, decrying what he called “the anti-Data Center movement” as a gift to China.

“The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote at the time.

“If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.”

Trump has taken several measures to accelerate data centre development, including issuing an executive order last year that called for measures to fast-track permitting and environmental review. The order promised to use federal land for the “expeditious and orderly development of data centers”.

Trump has also backed a voluntary pledge by AI companies to cover the full cost of the electricity data centres use, but has avoided supporting legally binding federal restrictions.

A Gallup poll conducted in March suggested that 71 percent of Americans opposed establishing AI data centres in their areas.

An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday identified a similar rate of disapproval, with 72 percent of respondents saying that they opposed building new data centres in their communities.

‘I’m absolutely disgusted by how we were treated’

A Ryanair passenger says he is ‘absolutely disgusted’ with the airline after travelling for a family funeral. Edward Stokes had flown to London Stansted with his son to pay his respects at the funeral of his cousin’s wife.

What should have been an emotional family occasion allegedly descended into a travel nightmare when the 49 year old said he ran into difficulties with his booking on the journey home last week. Edward claims he and his son were each hit with a £46 (€55) charge after missing the online check-in window by just three minutes for their outbound flight.

“I’m absolutely disgusted by how we were treated,” said Edward. “I’ve been a loyal Ryanair customer for years.

“In fact, Ryanair is practically the only airline my family and I ever use. But after what happened to me this week, I am absolutely shocked and disgusted.

“We were three minutes late checking in online on Tuesday morning and were charged €55 each, €110 in total. Fair enough, we were late.

“We accepted responsibility, paid the money and moved on. But what happened on the way home was a completely different story.”

Edward alleges he was then refused boarding on his homeward flight to Dublin due to a mix-up over the name on his reservation. His booking listed both Edward and Teddy – a nickname he commonly uses – and he claims he had been permitted to travel to England without any problems.

Unable to board his scheduled flight, he said he was forced to book an alternative service departing at 10pm for £300 (€357.57), after an earlier option would have set him back around £450. Yet he says his journey home was anything but straightforward.

Mr Stokes claims the replacement flight was delayed by approximately an hour and 45 minutes, meaning he missed the last bus home. With no funds for a taxi and nobody on hand to collect him, he says he was left stranded at Dublin Airport for five hours until the next bus, finally making it home the following morning.

Edward, a blinds and carpets business owner from Newbridge, County Kildare, Ireland, said: “I’ve been known as Teddy all my life. On the way over, my booking included Edward Teddy Stokes, and Ryanair allowed me to travel without any problem.

“On my return journey, there was confusion over my booking name, and I was refused boarding. I explained the situation to the Ryanair staff member.

“I explained that I had just attended one of the saddest funerals of my life and was simply trying to get home to my family. Her response?

“‘That’s not my problem. What do you want me to do about it? I couldn’t believe the attitude.

“There was absolutely no compassion, understanding or willingness to help. We have no problem accepting responsibility when I’m wrong.

“We were three minutes late checking in, and we paid the money. But where is the same accountability when an airline causes passengers serious inconvenience? What hurt me most wasn’t even the money.

“It was the way I was spoken to, the complete lack of compassion and the feeling that we were treated like we didn’t matter.. “Nobody should be spoken to or treated like that.

“All I wanted was to attend a family funeral, support my cousin and get home safely. I was absolutely exhausted.

“Between the sadness of the funeral and everything that happened with my flights, it’s been a very difficult and emotional week for me. Ryanair, is this really how you treat loyal customers?”

A Ryanair spokesperson said: “The first and surname on a passenger’s booking must match the first and surname on their travel documents. The passport that Mr Stokes presented at the boarding gate in Stansted did not match the first name on his booking for this Stansted to Dublin flight (14 October). Ryanair offers passengers a 24-hour grace period to correct minor spelling errors on bookings free of charge or full name changes up to two hours before scheduled departure (subject to a fee).

“Unfortunately, Mr. Stokes did not avail of either option and presented at the boarding gate in Stansted with a passport that did not match the name on his booking.”

For more information on names on travel documents, visit the Ryanair website’s section on the subject.

Gambian authorities have announced that funds from the sale of the country’s former president’s mansion in the United States would be used to pay reparations to victims of his rule.

The Gambia Reparations Commission confirmed Tuesday that it received just more than $2.5m from the sale of a property in the wealthy Washington, DC suburb of Potomac, Maryland, belonging to ex-President Yahya Jammeh.

The commission, which was set up to compensate victims of abuses committed during Jammeh’s 22-year rule ending in 2017, said in a statement that “the funds were deposited directly into the Reparations Fund account at the Central Bank of The Gambia and shall only be utilized for the payment of reparations”.

“The Commission is committed to ensuring that the funds are managed responsibly, transparently and accountably, with due regard to the rights and needs of victims and survivors,” it added.

Jammeh currently lives in Equatorial Guinea, after he was forced out under pressure from The Gambia’s West African neighbours following his 2016 election loss to current President Adama Barrow.

He is accused of presiding over the murder of political opponents, disappearances, rape and torture.

A commission of inquiry estimated that between 240 and 250 victims were killed by Jammeh’s forces in the former British colony of two million people.

Proceeds from corruption

President Barrow said in a statement that his government would heed any recommendations by official auditors on how the funds would be allocated to victims.

The US Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture complaint in 2020 alleging that the property was bought with proceeds of corruption. A court ordered its forfeiture in 2022.

The property, it asserted, was purchased through a trust set up by Jammeh’s wife.

The US Justice Department had announced in September that it would return the funds from the mansion sale to The Gambia.

Munster: O’Connor; McCarthy, Nankivell, Kelly, O’Brien; O’Shea, Casey; Loughman, Van der Merwe, Aungier; Ahern, Beirne (c), Edogbo, Hodnett, Gleeson.

Replacements: Clein, J Wycherley, Brookes, F Wycherley, G Coombes, O’Donovan, Hanrahan, O’Donoghue.

Racing 92: Prisciantelli, Hulleu, Habosi, Manu, Tupou; Gibert, Latrasse; Njocke, Escobar, Kharaishvili; Lainault, Joseph, Tagitagivalu, Martins, Baudonne (c).

Replacements: Basse, Leota, Bamba, Hughes, Camara, Machenaud, James, Roche.

Sin bin: Roche (70)

Referee: Karl Dickson (RFU)

MILEY Cyrus broke down in tears on stage at the Hollywood Bowl as she paid an emotional tribute to her late “aunt” Dolly Parton.

The Wrecking Ball hitmaker, 33, halted proceedings at the Los Angeles venue for a heart-wrenching monologue in which she said she and the country music icon are “eternal”.

Miley, who rebranded herself with a new name after Dolly’s tragic passing, aged 80, in August, took to the stage for her Bass Persuades gig.

Just five songs in, she took a seat and referred to the I Will Always Love You singer’s death and said: “Me and Dolly, we are eternal.

“Nothing in this life could ever tear us apart.

“And I am going to see her again, and I can’t f**king wait because I miss her,” before dabbing her eye with a tissue.

MILES AWAY

Miley Cyrus reveals extreme new lifestyle after near-death experience

MILEY’S MOVES

Miley Cyrus grinds on topless dancer in her underwear in new music video

Disney Channel alum Miley added: “Some of the greatest music that we have today was written, produced, performed by my aunt Dolly.

“This is one of those songs,” before the band started to play Jolene as the sixth song in her set.

One fan confessed on TikTok: “Now I’m crying”.

Another put: “Miley was the first person I thought of when I heard about Dolly”.

A third added: “And now I’m bawling over Dolly Parton again”.

Miley kicked off her 18-track show with song Orbit, and wrapped with Flowers.

Fan favourites The Climb, We Can’t Stop and Party In The USA also featured.

After dolly’s passing, she said she no longer wants fans to call her by her full moniker and revealed the change on social media.

She now appears to have dropped “Cyrus” completely from her stage name.

Dolly sadly passed after battling health issues.

Miley later penned a heartfelt tribute to her “Aunt Dolly” on Instagram, saying that the late singer “would want me to feel it, write a song about it, and then continue on and be strong.”

Dolly had first gotten close to Miley’s father, Billy Ray Cyrus, 65, after the success of his 1992 country hit, Achy Breaky Heart.

The pair toured together that same year, and Billy asked the I Will Always Love You hitmaker to be Miley’s godmother.

Rumors have circulated that Dolly, who did not have children of her own, left behind the rights and royalties of her hit track, Jolene, to Miley.

However, The U.S. Sun confirmed that no court filings related to Dolly’s will or official plans for what will happen to her $650 million fortune have been made yet.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They 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,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.