WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court began a new term Monday, with the justices grappling with an attempt by oil companies to dismiss lawsuits alleging they should pay damages for the impacts of climate change.
Although the case involves a specific lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, the final ruling could have broad ramifications for more than two dozen similar lawsuits filed by cities and counties across the country.
The justices — who are missing a ninth member due to the recusal of Justice Samuel Alito — asked tough questions of both sides as they tackled the big legal questions raised in the case. Alito’s absence raises the possibility of a 4-4 split decision that would leave legal questions unresolved while allowing the Boulder case to move forward.
Boulder officials say they face growing costs from the impacts of climate change, including efforts to minimize the risk of wildfires. Once again this summer, Colorado experienced extreme heat, drought and multiple fires.
The lawsuit, which brings charges under state law, claims that Exxon and Suncor misled consumers about how greenhouse gases produced by their products would impact the climate.
The companies deny the allegations and warn that if the Boulder lawsuit and others like it manage to move forward, they and other energy companies could face crippling damages in the billions of dollars. They also argue that climate change is such a national and international issue that it cannot be litigated in state courts.
There was some sympathy from the judges toward the oil companies and the risk of crippling damages.
Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the court’s conservatives, wondered how many other cities and counties would launch similar lawsuits if the court allowed the Boulder case to proceed.
“Just to make sure I understand correctly. Presumably, if you win, the next day a municipality in each state will file a lawsuit,” he told the Boulder lawyer.
Although Boulder’s claims are based on consumer deception, Roberts also seemed skeptical that the lawsuit was anything other than what he called “an effort to reduce emissions.”
On the other hand, Roberts, in an exchange with the oil companies’ lawyer earlier in the discussion, said litigation brought in state court against foreign companies over an allegedly harmful product is commonplace.
Other judges also seemed conflicted. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan at one point compared climate litigation to the wave of lawsuits against tobacco companies and drugmakers that sold opioids, which have been allowed to continue.
Oil companies have shied away from such comparisons, saying that in tobacco and opioid litigation there is a much more direct link between the product and the alleged harm to consumers.
Gn headline
