Supreme Court to decide climate liability
Legal counsel argues state courts lack authority to force energy firms to pay for societal adaptation costs.
By Tessa Cooper ·
The United States Supreme Court is set to rule on whether state courts can order specific companies to pay for harms related to broad societal issues. This legal question emerged from the Suncor v. Boulder County case, which involved climate change litigation filed in Colorado. Phil Goldberg, special counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project and InsideSources, argued on Nov. 3 that the answer should be no.
The City and County of Boulder are suing two energy companies under Colorado law. They seek to recover costs associated with adapting to climate change. Goldberg noted that Boulder is not the only government seeking such payments. Approximately 36 other state and local government lawsuits are currently seeking money for alleged effects of climate change. These cases target different numbers of defendants, with some naming a single company and others naming dozens.
Goldberg contended that state courts lack the authority to impose this type of liability. The harms alleged stem from greenhouse gas emissions from countless sources worldwide over more than a century. He stated that deciding these cases would require state courts to assign global rights and responsibilities for climate change. According to Goldberg, that task is beyond the scope of any state’s law.
During oral arguments on Oct. 5, Chief Justice John Roberts asked what would prevent municipalities in every state from filing similar lawsuits. Goldberg used this exchange to support his view that state-by-state litigation is not the proper forum for deciding who bears the costs of broad societal challenges. He argued that such issues require legislative judgments rather than judicial determinations.
Lawyers representing Boulder have stated that part of their objective is to use liability to raise energy prices. One of them described this liability as an indirect carbon tax because the costs will be passed on to consumers. Goldberg emphasized that carbon taxes are public policy issues for Congress, not liability matters for courts. He noted that making these decisions requires balancing affordability for families and businesses, economic considerations, environmental protection, and national security.
Goldberg observed that manufacturers are investing in technologies to reduce emissions, strengthen infrastructure, and help communities adapt to a changing climate. He argued that these efforts are best advanced through durable public policy and innovation, not retroactive case-by-case liability. The core question in the Boulder case is who has the authority to set the rules for addressing climate change. Goldberg urged the Supreme Court to leave climate and energy policy to Congress and federal agencies, not state courts.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Suncor v. Boulder County case on Oct. 5. The decision will determine whether state courts can assign global responsibilities for climate change to specific private entities. The outcome will influence how the approximately 36 other pending climate-related lawsuits proceed in state courts.
