Barry Law Environmental and Earth Law Journal

November 10, 2025

With climate-related disasters continuing to arise, the conversation of cost and who bears the responsibility has become more prevalent. States and cities have taken it amongst themselves to file lawsuits against major oil and gas companies, citing that these companies have contributed to climate change and should thus pay for the rising costs of the climate’s new temperament. In turn, the companies strongly dispute this, and the issue is now moving toward the United States Supreme Court.

At the heart of the states and cities’ argument is that they are spending copious amounts of public money in response to natural disasters such as flooding, extreme heat, the rise in sea level, and stronger storms. They claim that oil companies have known for decades that the burning of fossil fuels would contribute to global warming, but that they did not adequately warn the public, and in some instances, deemphasized the risks.

What these lawsuits are targeting is not the complete stop of the use of oil and gas directly, but instead, they’re shifting the focus to the cost of recovery that these companies negatively inflict on the states when climate-related disasters strike. States are now requesting that the courts hold companies financially responsible for climate-related damage. One obstacle that the states need to overcome is one of preemption, where the federal government is responsible for the regulation of interstate pollution, as well as international energy Policy.

In response, the oil and gas industry argues that these lawsuits are misplaced. They argue that climate change is a global issue and not something that can be addressed through local court cases. They further assert that these decisions about these emissions, energy policy, and climate strategy shouldn’t be made by lower courts but should be addressed directly by Congress, international agreements, and federal regulatory agencies. However, states have filed suit citing tort claims [1].

The United States Supreme Court recently got involved in County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy USA, Inc. The city and county brought tort action against Exxon Mobil Corporation and Suncor Energy, Inc., asserting public and private nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment. The City of Boulder is seeking damages, citing that the defendant’s role in the production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels played a pivotal role in the city’s climate change to which has caused them harm. Boulder states that the defendants knowingly engaged in these activities, knowing that the burning of fossil fuels would negatively impact climate change. Further, the state argues that these companies for decades have been misleading the public about the impacts of climate change and their role. The defendants argued that bringing suit is preempted by federal law and filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The defendants argued that the Clean Air Act has preempted Boulder’s claims, arguing both field preemption that Congress regulates the field of emissions and conflict preemption that Boulder’s claims presented an obstacle that federal law balances between the promotion of fossil fuels as well as the Environmental Protection. After the plaintiffs sought a writ of certiorari due to a conflict of whether the case belonged in State or Federal court, the United States Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated the judgment, and remanded the action [2]. With the opinion having not yet been released for publication in the permanent law reports, the fate of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy USA, Inc. is still subject to revision or withdrawal until its release.

What’s important to note is that with cases such as these continuing to arise, if the Supreme Court does intervene it could set major precedents about what types of climate-related lawsuits states could bring against companies. These cases touch on major policy questions on whether climate change losses should be addressed by Congressional regulation rather than through tort litigation. When the state is arguing that local harms are being caused by oil and gas companies, state law applies, but when climate change is argued as a global issue that’s tied to congressional energy regulation, the cases should be heard in federal court. The Supreme Court clarified its procedure in BP P.L.C v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, that oil companies may try to remove climate-related lawsuits from the state to the Federal level, but did not make a distinction on whether it would stay at the federal level or be remanded back to the state level. This is an issue that is still unresolved nationwide [3].

Overall, the implications become that if the Supreme Court decides that climate-related lawsuits, specifically when brought under tort action are brought into federal court, or if they that a precedent that state tort law cannot regulate oil and gas companies under federal preemption, the fear would become that cities and states would lose most of these lawsuits while oil and gas companies will avoid large settlements and climate regulation and accountability would shift back to Congress. However, if the Supreme Court does not do this, there will be an increase in climate-related lawsuits and potentially frivolous claims being brought, to which oil and gas companies could face billions of dollars in liability.

Written by Kendall Kearney, Associate Editor 2025-2026