Supreme Court to Hear Case on Climate Lawsuits Against Big Oil

Over the past few years, a wave of climate-related lawsuits has surged as numerous local and state governments have taken action against petroleum companies. These suits aim to recoup the billions spent on recovery efforts and infrastructure repairs necessitated by climate-intensified natural disasters like floods, storms, and wildfires. The impact of fossil fuels on these events is well-documented, intensifying the scrutiny on energy companies.

Central to these legal battles is the accusation that for decades, fossil fuel companies were aware of the environmental harm their products caused, yet chose to hide this information to safeguard their profits. Claimants are asking for judicial intervention to make these companies financially accountable for the burdens placed on the public due to their operations.

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County in its 2026 term. The appeal seeks to prevent state courts from holding fossil fuel companies liable for climate damage, a move reflecting a broader conservative legal strategy to limit corporate accountability for environmental harm.

Foreign Relations and National Security Arguments

Oil companies are presenting arguments centered on the federal government’s role in foreign affairs and national security to avoid liability. Historically, federal courts defer to the President on foreign matters due to constitutional powers like treaty-making and ambassadorial appointments.

Some conservative legal experts argue that these lawsuits against oil companies could penalize multinational corporations and interfere with the federal government’s foreign policy. The Office of the Solicitor General supports this view, suggesting that the Constitution limits local governments’ ability to pursue claims against multinational entities, citing the need for a unified national voice in foreign matters.

However, critics argue this interpretation misapplies the doctrine, which was originally intended for different contexts. As noted by scholars from the Transnational Litigation Blog, using it to dismiss state court claims for local harms is controversial. Both Colorado and Hawaii Supreme Courts have dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that local claims do not inherently interfere with federal foreign policy.

Furthermore, the Trump administration and energy companies have claimed national security concerns, arguing that defending these lawsuits could impact energy production. Yet, this claim lacks substantial evidence.

Clean Air Act Preemption

Another legal contention by oil companies is that the Clean Air Act supersedes state court claims such as those from Boulder County. These local claims often rely on traditional legal principles like “nuisance,” relating to public health and property enjoyment.

While the Supreme Court previously ruled that the Clean Air Act prevents federal nuisance claims, it did not explicitly block state law cases. Historically, the Court has maintained that federal laws generally do not overrule state authority in traditional areas unless Congress explicitly states so.

The Clean Air Act itself includes provisions that protect state court remedies. Lawsuits like Suncor’s focus on allegations of corporate deceit rather than pollution regulation, an area the Clean Air Act does not address. Hence, no federal statute has overridden state fraud claims.

Even in cases like the Atomic Energy Act, the Supreme Court allowed state lawsuits for damages, emphasizing that victims should not be left without recourse. This precedent suggests that state-level climate damage claims should persist despite federal environmental regulations.

A Contingency Plan

Anticipating the potential for the Supreme Court to rule against them, the energy sector and its political allies are exploring legislative solutions. Representative Harriet Hageman and Senator Ted Cruz have proposed bills to prevent lawsuits demanding that energy companies pay for climate damages, based on state laws.

These legislative efforts mirror the flawed notion that federal authority over national security and foreign affairs negates local and individual rights to seek compensation for incurred damages.

Conservative legal experts have long advocated for shielding corporations from liability for their actions. However, communities impacted by corporate practices deserve the opportunity to present their cases in court. Denying this right under the guise of national security equates to defending corporate impunity.