Tawnya Somauroo got less than an hour’s warning that a wildfire was bearing down on her suburban street. Then her home burned. On Monday, the first day of its new term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case asking whether oil and gas companies accused of misleading the public about climate change can be made to help cover the cost of disasters like the one she survived.
Boulder, Colorado, and Boulder County brought the case against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. They allege the companies deceived the public about their contributions to climate change and the costs of disasters linked to it. The two governments first sued eight years ago, seeking unspecified damages under state law. Billions of dollars are at stake. The outcome could affect similar lawsuits nationwide.
Who Pays After the Fire
The 2021 Marshall Fire, in which climate change was considered a factor, caused an estimated $2 billion in damage. It was the costliest wildfire in Colorado history. Somauroo has spent nearly five years rebuilding and trying to make her neighborhood better able to withstand another blaze. She worries that metal fencing and flame-resistant siding won’t be enough.
“We lost our homes and they left us to figure out for ourselves how to make our neighborhoods safe again,” Somauroo said. “At the end of the day, it comes out of our pockets, you know? And it does feel like maybe the oil and gas industry should have a part in this.”
Boulder County is one of dozens of jurisdictions across the country suing oil and gas companies to help pay for damage from climate-linked disasters.
The Federal Argument
The companies say state courts are the wrong place to address a global problem. “The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on earth,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an industry group. “This litigation doesn’t do that.”
The Trump administration backs the companies. Federal attorneys call the suits a backdoor attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and an unconstitutional power grab. They argue the Clean Air Act gives Washington, not the states, authority over emissions. The Republican administration has used that authority largely to roll back environmental regulations.
Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed rules limiting planet-warming emissions from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, ceding some of its climate authority. That move could complicate the federal government’s argument.
Boulder says it isn’t trying to set emissions policy for anyone else. “Boulder County and city aren’t trying to change what’s happening in Texas or New York, they’re trying to get compensation for things happening now in Colorado,” said Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
A Court With Its Own Questions
The case goes before a conservative-majority court where environmental regulations haven’t always fared well. A decision four years ago limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments, after calls for him to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. Eight justices are expected to sit. A tie vote remains possible.
The court is also weighing whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage. Experts describe that question as a potential “off-ramp.”
Chris Winter, executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, an environmental research group in Colorado, said local governments play “a very important role in helping front line communities adapt to climate change.” He added: “This case could very well set a precedent.”
Why This Matters: When a wildfire or flood destroys a neighborhood, someone pays for the rebuilding. In Boulder’s case, residents like Somauroo say it’s coming out of their own pockets, while the county seeks to recover local costs. If the justices side with the companies, or sidestep the case through the jurisdiction question, dozens of similar suits by other jurisdictions could be affected. A tie vote with Alito out would add another layer of uncertainty. The dispute also asks which level of government can act when federal regulation is being scaled back, since the EPA has just repealed power plant rules. For communities on the front lines, the answer may determine whether the cost of climate disasters stays with taxpayers and homeowners or is shared with the industry accused of misleading the public.