Supreme Court weighs whether federal law blocks Boulder climate lawsuit
publishers 57articles 76first reported 2 Oct, 13:56 UTCdeveloping since 2 Oct · 14 editions
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over whether Boulder, Colorado, may proceed with a state-law lawsuit accusing Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy of misleading the public about the climate effects of fossil fuels.
The city and county filed the case in Colorado state court in 2018, seeking damages for past and future climate-related harms. Exxon and Suncor contend that federal law governs interstate air pollution and preempts such state claims. Company lawyer Kannon Shanmugam argued that allowing the case to proceed could enable municipalities nationwide to use damages awards to shape national and international energy policy.
Boulder’s lawyer, Kevin Russell, said the lawsuit concerns alleged deception rather than emissions regulation and seeks damages, not an injunction restricting company activity.
The justices also examined whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to intervene before the lower courts have issued a final ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas raised that question early in the hearing, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said review appeared premature. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized earlier Supreme Court decisions treating interstate pollution as a federal-law matter. The Trump administration supported the companies, arguing that the lawsuit exceeds constitutional limits on state authority.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself without giving a reason, leaving eight justices to consider the case. A 4-4 split would leave intact the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision allowing Boulder’s lawsuit to continue. The dispute remains at an early stage and could affect more than two dozen similar climate cases brought by state and local governments against energy companies.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 7 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 108 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 57
- Source articles
- 76
- Given to the writer
- 8, 7 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 108 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 →