The US Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in a climate accountability lawsuit brought by the city of Boulder, Colorado, against Suncor Energy USA and ExxonMobil Corporation. This marks the first time the high court has directly addressed a case involving climate change liability, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the growing wave of climate litigation across the country.

Impact on Climate Litigation

The case centers on Boulder’s claim that the two oil companies have caused harm through their role in climate change, which has led to increased costs for the city, including damage from extreme weather events and rising temperatures. Colorado’s Supreme Court had previously refused to dismiss the case, prompting the oil companies to petition the US Supreme Court to halt the proceedings, arguing that federal law preempts such claims.

If the Supreme Court rules against the oil companies, it could provide a major boost for climate accountability cases, offering legal clarity for cities and states seeking to hold corporations responsible for climate-related damages. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the oil companies could invalidate the Boulder case and potentially dozens of similar lawsuits across the US.

“Local communities are living with the mounting costs of climate change,” said Aaron Brockett, mayor of Boulder. “The Supreme Court should affirm Colorado’s right to hold these companies accountable for the harm they have caused in Colorado.”

Legal Complexities and Precedent

The case has raised complex legal questions about the relationship between federal and state laws on climate regulation. The Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether federal law preempts the claims made by Boulder. This question has been further complicated by a recent decision by the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to repeal a key legal finding that allowed the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, noted that the court may need to assess whether this repeal impacts the legal argument of preemption. “The expectation is that the justices are probably going to give the oil companies some kind of win,” Parenteau said.

In reviewing the oil companies’ petition, the Supreme Court could decide to first determine whether the repeal of the endangerment finding affects the preemption argument, or it may proceed as if the repeal has no bearing on the case.

The justices also indicated they will consider whether they have the authority to take up the case at this time, a move that has added further uncertainty to the legal proceedings. Alyssa Johl, vice-president of legal and general counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity, emphasized the importance of the case: “The court should uphold what the Colorado Supreme Court and others have made clear: communities like Boulder have the right to seek accountability in their state courts when corporations have knowingly caused local harms.”

Implications for Future Litigation

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, even if it does not ultimately rule on the merits, could significantly delay climate accountability cases as lower courts await a potential high court ruling. “At a minimum, it’s going to freeze all these cases, because the state courts are going to say, ‘why should we go to the trouble of having trials in these cases if, in fact, the Supreme Court might throw them all out,'” Parenteau said.

In recent years, US states, cities, and other subnational governments have increasingly brought lawsuits against major oil companies, alleging that they have misled the public about the environmental impacts of their products. The most recent government to join this wave of litigation was the state of Michigan, which filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute, the nation’s largest fossil fuel lobbying group.

Last year, the Supreme Court denied a request to dismiss a lawsuit from Honolulu, and it also turned down an unusual attempt by red states to block climate litigation. These developments suggest that the court remains divided on the issue, with no clear consensus on how to handle such cases.

The Supreme Court is expected to schedule arguments for the case, though no specific date has been set. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for future climate litigation, potentially shaping the legal landscape for years to come.