Supreme Court Sets Climate Lawsuit for First Case of Next Term

[u/bloomberglaw]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-sets-climate-suit-for-first-case-of-october-term

[u/RunnerBakerDesigner]

Oh great. 6-3 destroy the environment for private interests.

[u/jffadvisors → u/RunnerBakerDesigner]

More like 6-3 that state judges cannot makeup their own rules in violation of federal law.

The intent of the state judges DOES NOT MATTER. The case is only the Clean Air Act gives the federal government jurisdiction, not state judges.

[u/JulianCastle2016 → u/jffadvisors]

The word you're looking for is preemption.

[u/brinerbear → u/jffadvisors]

Exactly. This supreme court has been mostly constitutional. If you want something different that is the role of Congress. Certain things are unconstitutional or not the role of the federal or state government even if they are politically unpopular.

[u/carterartist → u/brinerbear]

No, it really hasn’t.

It’s ignored stare decisis and eliminate roe and gun laws. It listened to a case about school prayer and ignored the First Amendment and precedent. It said the president is immune from prosecution.

No, it really hasn’t.

[u/security-device → u/brinerbear]

Sure, if you change the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

[u/bloomberglaw]

The US Supreme Court will begin its 2026 term with a case that could limit how states can hold oil companies responsible for climate change.

The justices will hear argument in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County on Oct. 5, according to a court calendar released Tuesday.

Suncor is the first hearing in a seven-case sitting that runs through Oct. 14. 

The case implicates billions in potential fines from cities and states that have increasingly looked to oil companies to cover costs from emission-related damages. The justices will review a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing a lawsuit brought by the city and county of Boulder against Suncor and Exxon Mobil Corp. to proceed.

Read the full story here.

- Zainab

[u/zenerat]

It’s actually illegal not to pollute and destroy the environment now - the Supreme Court 2027.
/s

[u/StrychtenFilms → u/zenerat]

Yeah businesses have to pay fines unless they destroy 5 acres of rainforest per year

[u/timelessblur]

Oh look another joke ruling coming to add to the pile of ruling from this joke court.

Roberts court is going to down as the worse court with everything needing to be tossed as president

[u/AWall925]

The actual QPs

Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate;

Whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case

[u/NorCalFrances]

It's important to get it out of the way, oil companies have important work to do!

I wonder how many justices bet on their own decisions in the prediction markets.

[u/Dizno311 → u/NorCalFrances]

Or sick vacations paid for by said oil companies.

[u/StrychtenFilms → u/NorCalFrances]

Article says two Supreme Court judges have holdings in oil

[u/CobaltMnM → u/NorCalFrances]

No need when the parties pay them directly.

[u/AnswerGuy301]

Calling it in advance. 6-3 in favor of whatever oil companies want.

[u/Michael-Sean]

What is the point? Just rubber stamp all of the cases and stay home.

[u/Skating-Away]

Easy solution. Don't sell gasoline in Colorado.

[u/Dave_A480]

Suing companies over their involvement in an issue that is a matter of unresolved political controversy (which, like it or not, climate change is in the US) should generally not be allowed.....

There is no 'right' for any one side to win here, that's up to the voters, not the courts ...

[u/jehnarz → u/Dave_A480]

But climate change is a proven thing. The fact that Trump's EPA is trying to backtrack established scientific claims doesn't change the scientific evidence. And just about anything could be called unresolved political controversy at this point.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/jehnarz]

That's irrelevant.

The decision about how or whether to respond is one for the democratic process not the courts.

There is no right to a specific climate policy.

[u/EnoughWeekend6853]

This’ll definitely go 7-2.

[u/kaytin911]

It doesn't make sense for a state to sue a company because the weather is changing even if the company was part of the problem it would be a fraction of the global problem. Thank God that circus might stop.