U.S. Supreme Court to decide state climate change case

Local city leaders cited state nuisance laws, which are typically used to resolve disputes where one individual is conducting behavior harmful to another person’s property, in proceedings against energy companies. The leaders sought damages proportionate to the harm of global climate change in the case.

“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” lawyers for Boulder County wrote in a filing to the high court.

Legal analysts said the outcome of this case could have significant consequences for the regulation of interstate commerce, particularly given previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Lawyers for the energy companies said the Clean Air Act protects entities from being involved in lawsuits regarding emissions that span across state lines.

“Seeking injury in the form of physical harms allegedly caused by global emissions, as petitioners do, is just an indirect method of regulating interstate and international emissions,” lawyers for the oil company wrote.

Michael Greve, a law professor at George Mason University, said he is concerned about how the high court will approach the case. He said the court is typically cautious to adopt new standards in its rulings, but called for more uniformity in how interstate commerce is regulated.

Greve said he hopes the high court will not leave the decision up to Congress.

“You cannot wait for Congress to come around and organize this universe,” Greve said. “It cannot decide what belongs to which state and even if it were it would decide that on the basis of sort of political convenience not constitutional propriety.”

Daniel Rodriguez, a law professor at Northwestern University, dismissed Greve’s concerns over the extent to which justices on the high court could rule in the case. He argued that Colorado’s regulations strictly pertain to the state and said Suncor’s arguments would be difficult to substantiate.

“Just the fact that a law has extra-territorial effects is not enough to raise constitutional problems,” Rodriguez said.

O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, said the case represents political polarization in Congress and across various state legislatures throughout the country. 

“You're going to see people come back to the till again and again in an attempt to govern the national economy from state laws,” Skinner said. “The answer of ‘Well, Congress could just pass a uniform law that tramples all the states equally is a really sad outcome because we are supposed to have a federal system for a reason.”

Skinner said justices on the high court will need to resolve to what extent the authors of the constitution intended to allow certain states to wield extraordinary amounts of power over commerce in other states.

“I personally don't want to live in Gavin Newsom's America where he's determining every single thing that happens even for a resident in Plano, Texas,” Skinner said. “But I think all of us should be very nervous about that reality.”

Justices on the high court will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 5 and are expected to issue a decision by June 2027.