Supreme Court Should Put a Stop to Unfair, Vague, Vindictive, and Stupid Climate Lawsuits

     A Supreme Court case currently being considered involves climate change litigation. I have always been opposed to these efforts, seeing them as vague, unfair, and vindictive. The Supreme Court heard arguments this past Monday in Suncor v. Boulder, a dispute over whether federal law prevents cities and states from suing oil companies under state law for alleged climate damage linked to emissions that cross state borders. For me, the ruling should clearly not allow such cases to go forward. They are vindictive in that they are propagated by anti-fossil fuel activists wishing to harm fossil fuel companies, which will also harm those who use their products, meaning everyone. Anybody want to see higher oil, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline prices? The answer is clearly no, but a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would likely result in just that. 

     According to Fox News:

 "You would see mass exodus and that would create more scarcity with fuel, more so than we're seeing already today, higher prices," Jason Isaac, CEO of American Energy Institute, told Fox News Digital. "And that's really what this is about. It's about controlling these companies and stopping the use of hydrocarbons."

     One of the plaintiffs was asked if similar lawsuits could be filed against others, including large retailers, and he answered that it could happen. Justice Brett Kavanaugh opined that widespread litigation of the sort could bankrupt defendants.

“The city and county of Boulder, Colo., sued oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018, accusing the companies of knowingly contributing to climate change while misleading the public about the alleged dangers of fossil fuels. The municipalities are seeking damages to help cover the mounting costs of climate-related harms. There are roughly 30 similar lawsuits pending in jurisdictions across the country, including cases in Portland and Baltimore.”

“Boulder's lawsuit alleged ExxonMobil and Suncor knew for decades about the climate risks associated with fossil fuels but misled the public about those risks. The complaint pointed to a 1977 internal memo from ExxonMobil that circulated among the company's highest-level managers. The memo reported that "current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors" that fossil fuels contribute to the rise in CO2 emissions.”

     I have always thought that such claims are patently ridiculous since no one really knew the possible implications of climate change until much later, and even now there are significant uncertainties. The other objection I have is simply that we need inexpensive, abundant, and reliable energy, which can best be provided mostly by fossil fuels. Boulder, also known as the People’s Republic of Boulder for its reputation regarding renewable energy and Marxist socialism, is perhaps where such lawsuits are likely to originate. I have always noted that so-called climate change attribution science holds many uncertainties and is basically unreliable, not unlike the energy promoted by its advocates.

“David Bookbinder, who previously served as counsel of record for Boulder but is no longer involved in the case, described the lawsuit as a way to implement an "indirect carbon tax" during a Federalist Society forum last year.”

“But Boulder has maintained that the case is not an attempt to regulate national climate policy, arguing instead that Colorado has the authority to hold companies accountable under state law for alleged harms suffered within its borders.”

"Since the founding, states have had the power to provide tort remedies for injuries occurring within their borders even when the conduct causing those injuries occurred elsewhere," Russell told the justices.

“O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, argued that the lawsuits are an attempt to accomplish through the courts what climate advocates have been unable to achieve through Congress.”

"When you really boil it down, and you separate it from all the legal arguments, the advocates who push these cases are very clear," Skinner told Fox News Digital. "That it's an effort to get a backdoor carbon tax, because carbon taxes have never passed in Congress, or to bankrupt the energy industry."

     A victory for the plaintiff could lead to a flurry of similar cases which would have a chilling effect on some of the country’s most important companies. Even the costs to defend the cases would be astronomical.

"From Boulder's perspective, anybody who's contributed to climate change would be liable, any sort of company, big or small, and the problem here is that to the left, climate change is everything and everything is climate change," Skinner told Fox News Digital. "So it's very hard to find a line for who isn't contributing to climate change."

     Some other states, including Utah, have banned these kinds of state tort law cases.

"If the energy companies were to lose and Colorado were to win, this would in effect drive up the prices of gas all across the country," Utah Attorney General Derek Brown told Fox News Digital. "And so those kind of decisions ultimately, it's the province of Congress."

     For me, this is a huge no-brainer. I would like to see this case decided in favor of the defendants, and I would also like to see it decided with significant support of the liberal justices as well as the conservative ones. Apparently, Samuel Alito recused himself from the case, so there is a chance of a 4-4 tie. However, I am fairly confident that a majority will rule in favor of the defendants, hopefully an 8-0 unanimous decision that will pour cold water on future cases like this, which basically waste the courts’ time and energy. The cases are just plain stupid.

 

References:

 

Supreme Court climate case could bankrupt oil companies, send gas prices soaring, experts warn. Elaine Mallon. Fox News. October 10, 2026. Supreme Court climate case could bankrupt oil companies, send gas prices soaring, experts warn