Supreme Court sounds wary of state-based climate change suits against oil producers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.
Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.
“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”
Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.
At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.
California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.
Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.
For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.
They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.
The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.
They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.
So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.
But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.
If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.