The Supreme Court will soon hear the case of Suncor v. Boulder, which holds significant implications for state and local governments’ capacity to hold corporations accountable for harmful practices. This case could influence the ability of governments across the U.S., from Maine to Hawaii, to pursue legal action against major oil and gas firms.
The lawsuit in question involves Boulder, Colorado. The city and county seek accountability from ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy for allegedly misleading the public about the environmental effects of fossil fuel use, leading to catastrophic weather events.
Currently, communities nationwide face mounting costs due to climate change, such as fires, floods, droughts, and extreme heat. These events are intensifying health crises, especially in vulnerable populations like children.
ExxonMobil and Suncor have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court decision, which allows Boulder’s lawsuit to proceed. The companies argue that their actions fall under the protection of the federal Clean Air Act. However, former EPA officials contest this claim, asserting there is no language in the Act to preempt Boulder’s claims.
Boulder is not seeking to regulate air pollution but to obtain damages for local harm caused by the companies’ deception about climate risks.
The stakes for Boulder are high. The litigation does not aim to halt fossil fuel production but to seek redress for the harm caused by misleading practices. Opponents of Boulder’s lawsuit claim a ruling against oil companies could disrupt the fossil fuel market, but such claims lack evidence.
There is also a debate within the Supreme Court regarding its jurisdiction over the case before Colorado has issued a final judgment. Critically, the purpose of the Clean Air Act is to reduce air pollution, not to protect fossil fuel companies from liability for deceptive actions.
The Act empowers the federal government to set pollution limits, but it does not preclude states from enforcing laws against harmful corporate conduct. The current U.S. administration has taken steps that seem contrary to the intentions of the Clean Air Act, such as repealing carbon pollution limits on power plants.
Some members of Congress have supported measures to protect oil companies legally, an acknowledgment of existing laws supporting Boulder’s claims. Ultimately, allowing Boulder to pursue its claims aligns with the core intent of the Clean Air Act—protecting the public from harmful pollution rather than shielding corporations.
Gina McCarthy is a former climate adviser and EPA administrator. Avi Garbow is a former EPA general counsel and founder of Fiery Run Environmental Strategies.
Leave a Reply