Supreme Court questions oil companies’ effort to block Boulder climate lawsuit
publishers 48articles 61first reported 2 Oct, 13:56 UTCdeveloping since 2 Oct · 14 editions
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided Monday as it considered an effort by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to stop a Colorado climate lawsuit before trial, with several justices questioning whether the court could or should intervene at this stage.
Boulder’s city and county governments sued the companies in state court in 2018, alleging they misled the public about the risks of fossil fuels and contributed to climate-related harms. The governments seek damages for costs including infrastructure repairs, emergency management, environmental damage and public-health effects.
The companies argue that federal law preempts claims under Colorado law because interstate air pollution is inherently a federal matter. Their lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam, said the lawsuit improperly seeks to use state law to regulate conduct and emissions worldwide. The Trump administration supported that position, arguing that Congress did not authorize such a suit under the Clean Air Act.
Boulder’s lawyer, Kevin Russell, said the case concerns alleged deception rather than direct regulation of emissions and seeks damages, not an injunction.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why the claims should be barred when state lawsuits have been permitted in comparable contexts. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested Supreme Court review was premature, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized earlier rulings treating interstate pollution as a matter of federal law. The justices also examined whether they have jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court decision allowing the case to proceed.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, leaving eight justices to hear the case. A 4-4 split would leave the Colorado ruling in place.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 6 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 96 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 48
- Source articles
- 61
- Given to the writer
- 8, 6 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 96 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →