Supreme Court hears case aimed at holding energy companies responsible for climate change

Geoff Bennett:

A new term on the U.S. Supreme Court began today as the justices heard arguments in a major case on climate change. The outcome could shape how other communities hold industries accountable.

Our justice correspondent, Ali Rogin, gets us started.

Ali Rogin:

Jeff, local officials in Boulder, Colorado, are seeking compensation from energy companies Suncor and ExxonMobil for the cost of natural disasters they say are caused by climate change. But energy companies say they are not responsible, and dozens of similar lawsuits across the country could bankrupt the sector and harm consumers.

Only eight justices heard the case after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself because of his holdings in oil and gas stocks.

To hear more about today’s arguments and what lies ahead this quarter, I’m joined now by Amy Howe, “News Hour” Supreme Court analyst and co-founder of SCOTUSblog.

Welcome back, Amy.

Amy Howe:

Thanks for inviting me.

Ali Rogin:

Amy, before today’s arguments, the court’s conservative justices were expected to rule against Boulder. What do you think of all this after hearing today’s arguments?

Amy Howe:

It was unclear exactly how the court would decide this case. In this case, there did not necessarily appear to be a majority coalesced around a single legal theory in favor of the energy companies.

A few conservative judges expressed concern that a ruling in favor of Boulder, the city and county that brought this particular lawsuit, would open the floodgates to similar suits. This involves climate change, but perhaps even other causes of action across the country.

So we may have to wait until early next year to see how the judges rule.

Ali Rogin:

And, as we mentioned, Justice Alito recused himself, meaning the decision could be split 4 to 4. But what does the absence of a significant conservative justice here mean about the potential outcome?

Amy Howe:

That really changes the dynamic, because, like you said, that leaves them with eight judges. If they split 4-4, the lower court’s decision remains in effect. And in this case, the Colorado Supreme Court said that Boulder’s lawsuit against these two energy companies can move forward.

A few months ago, we saw that in a case involving an Oklahoma religious charter school, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was impeached. The justices split 4-4, leaving the ruling against the religious charter school in place.

Ali Rogin:

Wow.

And if the court ends up siding with Boulder, what does that mean for other lawsuits against industries that create pollution? Does this mean they don’t go further?

Amy Howe:

It depends on exactly what the court says, obviously, but there is — as Kannon Shanmugam, who represented the energy companies today at the Supreme Court, said, there are currently more than two dozen cases across the country that rely on theories similar to those put forward by Boulder in this case, the idea that energy companies have been deceptive in their marketing and in their sales of fossil fuels.

And to the extent that the Supreme Court says the Boulder allegations can’t move forward, that would mean these can’t move forward either. And that was part of the argument that Shanmugam made to the Supreme Court today, which is that we’re not really just talking about this case. We’re talking about many more and potentially billions of dollars in damage across the country.

Ali Rogin:

Today’s arguments were the first of the term, but there will be many more. What else are you watching, listening to?

Amy Howe:

So the court will hear arguments in December in a case involving challenges to bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. This is definitely going to be one of the big cases of the term.

The United States has 16 million semi-automatic rifles. So the question is whether or not states and local governments can ban them. There will be some cases involving immigration, which we once thought of as a rather technical area of ​​law, but the Trump administration has really made it part of its policy agenda in this second term.

So there’s a case involving the merits of what we call third-country removals, which are quickly deporting non-citizens to countries that they don’t necessarily have a connection to and where they say they might face human rights violations.

And then there’s another immigration case that the court agreed to consider last week, dealing with whether or not the Trump administration can detain noncitizens who entered the country illegally and then are apprehended in detention without the opportunity to hold a hearing to assess whether they could be released on bond while awaiting deportation proceedings.

This is a reversal from the previous administration’s policies and could potentially affect millions of non-citizens who are in this country undocumented.

Ali Rogin:

Amy, it’s a new term, but these judges haven’t really had a break. They ruled over the summer on these emergency cases, which are a little quicker. They are not fully informed or argued.

And they included judgments on things important to the president, like building a ballroom in the White House, mail-in voting, immigration policy. And some of those decisions went against President Trump, and he really went after the judges on the court that he appointed.

Samuel Alito was asked about this in a recent interview, and we want to play what he said.

Samuel Alito, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

President Biden’s and the justices’ criticism of the court and his administration has been very harsh. And President Trump has been very tough.

We are not part of any political movement. And we’re not trying to advance any political agenda. We try to interpret the Constitution as best we can and apply it in the cases before us.

Ali Rogin:

So we know some of what is currently on file. Are there other issues that could come before this court that really matter to this president? And Justice Alito sort of dismissed some of those criticisms, saying he had no problem accepting them. But I wonder, what is your impression of how these justices feel about this president’s antagonism toward them?

Amy Howe:

Well, I think to the extent that – I think they would all tell you that they take it in stride, that it’s part of the job.

I mean, I think it’s certainly unusual for the president to be so critical of the judges he’s appointed. On the other hand, I would say that he was very successful. Granted, those were losses on the emergency docket over the summer, but there was a stretch last year on the emergency docket in which the Trump administration won about two dozen times in a row.

And, when it comes to potential issues important to the Trump administration that could come before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has only fulfilled about half of its role for the 2026-2027 term. They will continue to add cases at least until January.

And the Supreme Court could take up cases involving the Trump administration’s ban on transgender members of the military. There is a set of highly technical, but important, disputes involving the Trump administration’s efforts to appoint acting U.S. attorneys to different jurisdictions around the country.

And this doesn’t involve the Trump administration, but we’re all keeping an eye on two challenges to laws in Texas and Louisiana requiring public school classrooms to post copies of the Ten Commandments.

Ali Rogin:

A very busy mandate.

Amy Howe with SCOTUSblog, thank you very much.

Amy Howe:

Thanks for inviting me.