The Supreme Court of the United States has begun this Monday the oral hearings to decide whether to authorize the continuation of lawsuits filed by local administrations against major oil companies for the effects of climate change. The decision will set the course for dozens of similar processes driven by different states and municipalities across the country.
The litigation that has now reached the High Court pits the city and county of Boulder, in Colorado, against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy. Local authorities are claiming compensation for the damages suffered in infrastructure and public health as a result of global warming, arguing that the companies have downplayed the impact of fossil fuels. The oil companies, for their part, deny the accusations and request that the case be dismissed, claiming that greenhouse gas emissions are a matter of federal jurisdiction and should not be addressed through lawsuits in state courts.
According to the American newspaper "The Washington Post," during nearly two hours of the hearing, the judges raised various technical questions, while the representatives of Boulder compared this procedure to the historic lawsuits against the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. In this regard, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, according to the cited medium, that those cases bore little difference to the one now affecting the oil companies, which in her opinion would justify the continuation of the lawsuit.
In contrast, judges like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett aligned with the defense's arguments, recalling that prior doctrine assigns the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over air and water pollution. Other positions, such as that of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that an intervention by the Supreme Court at this stage could be "premature."
The president of the Court, John Roberts, warned according to Bloomberg of the possible implications of the ruling, noting that a victory for the plaintiffs could encourage similar claims to be filed in all states across the country.
The final ruling is expected to be known between June and July. The recusal of Judge Samuel Alito —who has voluntarily stepped aside due to his wife owning shares in companies in the sector— opens the door to a possible tie of four votes.
If that outcome were to occur, the Supreme Court would leave in place, de facto, the prior decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that allows the trial to proceed, although without setting a binding precedent for the entirety of the United States territory.