What’s going on: On Monday, the Supreme Court opened its new term with a case that could define climate change policy for years to come (no pressure, justices). Earlier this year, SCOTUS agreed to hear Suncor v. Boulder, a lawsuit the Colorado city filed against oil titans Suncor and ExxonMobil. Lawyers representing Boulder argue these companies should be held responsible for knowingly exacerbating climate change by marketing and producing their oil and allegedly covering up knowledge of its harms. They say the fossil fuel companies have worsened Colorado’s heat waves and forest fires — and one report found climate change could cost the state $37 billion in damages over the next 25 years. Instead of making residents pay the price, Boulder wants Big Oil to be liable. Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that this isn’t a state issue, but a federal one.
The stakes: If the justices rule that the suit can move forward, it could open the door to dozens of similar lawsuits and cost energy companies billions. That’s ultimately what happened in the 1990s with Big Tobacco, which paid a $206 billion nationwide settlement. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry hopes the justices deliver a “death blow” so “there will never, ever be climate change litigation again,” as one law professor told The Guardian. The Supreme Court could also allow parts of the case to move forward or kick it back down to state courts. Big Oil has a powerful ally in the Trump administration, with Justice Department lawyers arguing for the fossil fuel companies in court. But Boulder only needs four justices to side with the city after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself last week because he owns stock in oil companies. Don’t hold your breath on a verdict: Hearings will continue through April, and a decision is expected by July.
