Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear Suncor v. Boulder, a case that could expose oil companies to nationwide climate lawsuits. Their repeated inquiries suggested the liberal justices may be seeking a procedural exit before ruling on the substantive conflict between state and federal authority. The Supreme Court began its new term Monday by hearing oral arguments in the case, which centers on whether state tort laws can be used to seek damages from oil companies for climate change harms occurring outside the state or continent.
The case is in an unusual procedural posture because it remains before the Colorado Supreme Court. This status allows the high court to resolve the matter without addressing the core federalism dispute: whether Colorado can use its own laws to seek damages for emissions from other states, or if that issue belongs exclusively to the federal government and Congress. Justice Jackson described the dispute as "premature from the standpoint of this court exercising its jurisdiction," noting the court does not have the full set of facts. She questioned why the court could not wait, stating it does not "really know enough to be confident" that the legal theories are applicable.
Justice Sotomayor proposed sending the case back to the Colorado Supreme Court to certify specific questions regarding jurisdiction. "If we're unsure of your characterization... shouldn't we be certifying this question to the Colorado court instead of us deciding it?" she asked. Conservative legal analysts interpret these questions as an attempt to avoid being outvoted on whether federal laws like the Clean Air Act preempt state claims. Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital that the justices were looking for an "escape hatch." Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, agreed, stating the questions indicated fear of losing on the main issue.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Boulder attorney Kevin Russell on whether a victory for Boulder could trigger similar lawsuits across the country. Russell acknowledged that Boulder's theory could allow other fossil-fuel businesses to be sued, though he cited legal limits. Suncor attorney Kannon Shanmugam emphasized during arguments that there are 90,000 political jurisdictions that could potentially sue, along with individuals claiming damages from global warming. He argued that Boulder is attempting to resolve a major policy issue in courts rather than through legislative branches.
Boulder alleged that ExxonMobil and Suncor knew for decades about climate risks associated with fossil fuels but misled the public. The complaint cites a 1977 internal ExxonMobil memo circulated among top managers, which reported that "current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors" the idea that fossil fuels contribute to rising CO2 emissions. The lawsuit claims these actions have led to significant adaptation costs for taxpayers, including expenses related to wildfires, drought, and infrastructure damage.
Former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat and climate advocate, argued that communities are already feeling these costs. "So many communities have essentially burned down, and they ought to be able to have a day in court," Inslee told Fox News Digital. He stated that oil company scientists knew their products were dangerous as early as 1967. Conversely, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Utah Attorney General Derek Brown argued that allowing such lawsuits would effectively create a carbon tax and allow states to regulate global behavior, a power they believe should rest with Congress.