Supreme Court to Review State Lawsuits Against Energy Companies Over Climate Change

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on whether federal law preempts state-level climate change lawsuits against energy companies could impact Alabama's energy sector and the potential for similar lawsuits within the state, which is a significant producer of crude oil and natural gas.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the first day of its October 2026 term in *Suncorp Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*. The case addresses whether federal law supersedes state lawsuits filed against energy companies over their alleged role in causing climate change. The issue of preemption, where federal law overrides state law, frequently comes before the Supreme Court. The court's decisions on preemption have shown varied outcomes. Last term, the court decided two notable preemption cases. In *Monsanto Co. v. Durnell*, the court, in a 7-2 decision, found that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempted state tort liability for failure-to-warn claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Separately, in *Watson v. Republican National Committee*, a 5-4 majority ruled that federal law specifying the date of federal elections does not prevent states from counting absentee ballots received within five days of the election. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court's opinion, stating, "The election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward." Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, and, in part, Kavanaugh, and would have found preemption. The Constitution's Article VI, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. This means federal law controls in instances of conflict with state law. The Supreme Court has stated that any state law conflicting with federal law must yield. Preemption generally falls into two categories: express preemption, where a federal law explicitly supersedes state law, and implied preemption, where congressional intent to preempt state law is clear. Implied preemption further divides into conflict preemption, where federal and state laws are mutually exclusive; objectives preemption, where state law obstructs a federal objective; and field preemption, where federal law fully occupies a legal area. The case of *Suncorp Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County* originated when Boulder County commissioners and the city of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and three Suncor Energy entities in Colorado state court. They seek damages for the companies' alleged contributions to climate change through their fossil fuel operations. Boulder's claims include public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. They allege the companies knew about climate change impacts while misrepresenting the risks of their products. Boulder asserts it has incurred and will incur substantial costs protecting against climate impacts such as wildfires, flooding, and drought. The lawsuits do not aim to stop oil and gas operations or enforce emissions controls. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not preempt Boulder's claims and sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings. The state court found no express preemption in the Clean Air Act and no field preemption, noting the act's savings clauses preserve stricter state standards and common-law rights. It also concluded no conflict preemption existed, as compliance with both the act and state tort law is possible, and Boulder's damages claims do not seek to regulate emissions, posing no obstacle to the act's purposes. This case marks the first time one of many similar civil lawsuits against oil companies regarding climate change has reached the Supreme Court. Energy companies argue for preemption on several grounds. They contend the Constitution denies states the authority to regulate pollution with interstate effects. They cite Supreme Court cases establishing federal common law in this area, stating, "The Court has long held that interstate pollution is an inherently federal area in which state law cannot govern." They also argue the Clean Air Act preempts state tort liability, claiming that if state law could not apply before the act, it remains inapplicable unless the act explicitly authorizes it. Finally, the energy companies assert that allowing state tort liability would have foreign policy implications, arguing such claims infringe on the federal government's exclusive authority over foreign affairs. This argument involves a concept known as implied dormant foreign affairs preemption. Previous Supreme Court cases have addressed foreign affairs preemption. In *Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council*, the court unanimously found a Massachusetts law prohibiting state agencies from purchasing goods from companies doing business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions law. In *American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi*, a 5-4 decision found a California law requiring insurance companies to disclose Holocaust-era policy information preempted based on the President's implied dormant foreign affairs power.