The U.S. Supreme Court will hear significant cases on climate change, consumer protection and discrimination in its upcoming term.
The first day of arguments at the high court is Oct. 5. The court will hear Suncor Energy v. Boulder, a case challenging whether state and local governments can utilize tort laws to seek billions in damages against energy companies over alleged contributions to climate change.
“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” lawyers for Boulder County, Colorado, wrote in a brief to the high court.
U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said he is concerned about the case’s implications to regulate oil and gas production in his state and across the country. He pointed to the vast array of oil and natural gas resources in North Dakota and Alaska that would be regulated if the high court rules in favor of Boulder, Colorado.
“It is anti-capitalism,” Cramer said. “You simply can’t have a patchwork of laws determining what other states do in their own state.”
Cramer said environmental activists who file lawsuits against large energy companies also seek to do damage through the lawsuit’s discovery process. He said the discovery process can be expensive and painful for an energy company involved in a lawsuit.
Cramer touted bipartisan permitting reform legislation in the U.S. Senate to reduce the timeframe for discovery in high profile climate lawsuits. The legislation would require a lawsuit to be brought against energy companies in 150 days, rather than current timeframes, which are up to six years.
With more than 30 lawsuits playing out across the country that contain similar legal arguments to Suncor v. Boulder, these requirements would have a significant effect on future climate litigation.
“The domino effect is more about the process than it is an actual successful litigation outcome,” Cramer said.
On the other side, a bipartisan group of former senior U.S. government climate experts have asked the Supreme Court to allow Boulder to hold energy companies accountable for local damage caused by climate change, according to a Yale Law School article.
The officials filed an amicus brief arguing that, in the absence of congressional approval, the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from climate regulation does not constitute foreign affairs lawmaking sufficient to block Colorado courts from hearing Boulder’s lawsuit, according to the article.
“Amici have devoted their careers to building the nation’s climate policy through the channels the Constitution prescribes – statutes enacted by Congress, regulations promulgated through lawful process, treaties and executive agreements, and diplomacy sustained across administrations of both parties,” the brief said.
“That experience confirms what this Court’s precedents require: that displacement of state law requires an affirmative act of federal lawmaking, not the absence of coherent policy.”
Cramer acknowledged that Congress could play a role in clarifying the power of states granted by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The two pieces of legislation are expected to feature prominently in climate activist arguments against the energy companies on Monday.
However, Cramer said he is optimistic that the high court will acknowledge the far reaching implications of climate litigation in the Suncor case and prevent future high-profile lawsuits from moving forward.
“This is where interstate commerce really needs to prevail,” Cramer said. “If enough of these things like Suncor get shot down on that basis hopefully more and more of them will be dismissed.”
Salazar v. Paramount Global
The high court will also take up a significant consumer protection case. On Oct. 14, justices on the court will hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case challenging decades-old consumer privacy laws.
Michael Salazar subscribed to Paramount’s online newsletter to view videos. The justices will weigh whether Paramount violated Salazar’s privacy rights by sharing his login information with Facebook and its parent company Meta.
The argument is expected to focus on the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer.” In the legislation drafted by Congress, “consumer” is defined as “a subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.”
The different parties in the argument will discuss whether the laws protections are limited to audiovisual goods and services or all goods.
“The VPPA broadly prohibits a video tape service provider-like Paramount here-from knowingly disclosing ‘personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider,"” lawyers for Salazar wrote.
John Beisner, partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, said the Congressional statute does not appear to be as broad as Salazar intends.
“This reading that’s being promoted by the petitioner is overly broad and it is presenting some results which are inconsistent with congressional intent,” Beisner said. “This will be the struggle for the court because of the wording of the statute.”
Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia
Justices on the high court will also hear Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia, a dispute over pregnancy discrimination allegations on Nov. 2.
The case focuses on Jasmine Younge, who alleged pregnancy discrimination after she was fired from her job as deputy chief of staff for Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard.
The District Attorney’s office said Younge was a member of Howard’s “personal staff” and exempt from protections against pregnancy discrimination. However, that claim was not included in the District Attorney’s original pleading.
Younge challenged the omission from the District Attorney’s original pleading and argued her firing was prohibited under Title VII. As a member of Howard’s personal staff, however, Younge would be required to file her discrimination complaint through an adjudication process under the Government Employees Rights Act.
“The critical decisions by Younge that channeled this case into district court had been made in 2019, more than two years before the defendant first asserted that Younge’s claim was not covered by Title VII,” lawyers for Younge wrote in a petition to the high court.
Robert Peck, founder and president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, said the case before the court is due to procedural error in lower court litigation. He said the parties should have clarified the role of pregnancy discrimination sooner.
“The exception built into the statute for a member of the personal staff of the elected official is one of long standing and should have been asserted right away,” Peck said.
The high court will hear these challenges and many more as its term begins on Oct. 5. All of the court’s decisions are expected to be released by June 2027.