The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in the case of Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The case, which was heard by eight justices panel after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, concerns the permissibility of state-law claims over climate-related deception and harms. In response, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, issued the following statement:

“This case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception. The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability. The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing. It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible.

“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely. The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”

Read Public Citizen's amicus brief on Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County here.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments today in Suncor v. Boulder, Corey Riday-White, legal director of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial.

“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception.”

Notable moments when the justices questioned Exxon and Suncor’s arguments included:

• Justice Kagan raised questions about Exxon and Suncor’s claims that Boulder’s case is preempted by the principles of federalism. "Where's the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that? Where’s the anything for that?”
• Multiple justices, including Justice Thomas, raised questions about whether it was premature for the Supreme Court to take the case at this early stage. The justices themselves added a question to arguments about whether they have jurisdiction to rule on the case now. “We’re really early in this case,” said Justice Jackson. “I wonder whether we should be considering matters like this essentially piecemeal? . . . Why shouldn’t we wait and hear all of these claims once the state courts are done with their federal considerations?”
• Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that there’s a long history of state courts hearing tort claims like Boulder’s: “Conduct that could have impacts in many states, all of the states, we still allow, in many of these situations, people to file in their state to seek relief from injuries that are occurring in their state.”
• Justice Kagan called lawsuits against Big Oil companies “Chapter 3” in a line of cases beginning with those against tobacco and opioid companies for their deceptive actions. “This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm. And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted and the other is not?” Kagan asked.
• Justices also sharply questioned the idea that Boulder’s case is preempted by the Clean Air Act or other federal law. Justice Barrett characterized the oil companies’ arguments over federal preemption as “a little slippery.”
• Justice Sotomayor pointed out that Boulder’s case centers on the oil companies’ deceptive behavior, which has long been an area of law in state authority, and not preempted by federal law: “The Clean Air Act does not regulate marketing or advertising of fuel … It’s not clear to me how regulating the production and false advertisement of oil affects air and water.”

Background on U.S. Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil:

Eleven U.S. states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai`i, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont — and the District of Columbia, two tribal governments, and dozens of municipal governments have active lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. These cases collectively represent more than 1 in 4 people living in the United States.

Background on Boulder et al. v. Suncor et al.

Originally filed in 2018, Boulder’s lawsuit seeks to make ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy pay for the costs of local climate damages, arguing that the companies deceived the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products and continued to produce, market, and sell them at dangerous levels despite knowing the risk.

Like other communities across the country, Boulder is facing staggering costs to protect residents and infrastructure from climate damages. In 2021, more than 1,100 homes and businesses in the county were destroyed in the deadly Marshall Fire, which scientists found was made more destructive because of climate change, and caused more than $2 billion in damages.

A wide range of voices across the ideological spectrum have sided with Boulder’s arguments. They include Colorado ranchers, nonpartisan government groups, tribal governments, economists, conservative and progressive legal scholars, 19 attorneys general, 90 members of Congress, and former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.