Washington (United States) (AFP) – The United States Supreme Court on Monday examines an existential case for the oil industry: like the tobacco industry in the past, where and how can it be held responsible for the climate damage caused by its products?

Published on: 03/10/2026 - 09:48

More than 40 lawsuits have been filed in the United States at various levels of jurisdiction (states, cities, tribes, etc.) against oil companies because of their role in climate change and their alleged strategies to hide the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

The judges of the highest court in the country have the future of these proceedings in their hands: they could let them continue at local levels, or put a stop to them.

Trump support

It started with the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018, claiming they "knowingly caused and contributed to climate change" while "concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers" of their products.

Suncor operates a refinery in Colorado, where ExxonMobil has a strong presence. Communities are demanding compensation for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses caused by fires, floods and other extreme weather events linked to climate change.

Companies denounce a huge “carbon tax” likely to “bankrupt” the entire industry. But rather than fighting in dozens of local courts, they directly asked the Supreme Court to dismiss all of these lawsuits, arguing that only the federal level could prevail - with the support of the Trump administration.

This argument is very debatable, told AFP Corey Riday-White, of the Center for Climate Integrity, who recalls that Meta was prosecuted in California for the addiction of adolescents to social networks, which led to a historic agreement with several states.

A key case

The fact that the Court agreed to examine the case is "not a very good sign" for Boulder, observes Sam Sankar, of the NGO Earthjustice, which supports the city. Perhaps this is a way of signaling their disagreement with the Colorado courts, which rejected the oil companies' arguments.

On the merits, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether federal law, in particular the Clean Air Act or the Constitution, obstructs Boulder's requests.

The Court could also decide to "postpone the problem until later" by focusing on the procedure, Katrina Kuh, professor of environmental law at Pace University, explains to AFP.

But a decision on federal law would have immediate consequences for many trials across the country: “it could end them entirely,” she said.

A shutdown could also affect “climate super funds,” laws passed by New York and Vermont to get big polluters to finance climate resilience projects. The New York law was struck down last month by a federal judge. An unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court could prevent an appeal.

A judge recuses himself

The companies argue that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exclusive authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Paradoxically, Donald Trump's administration decided the opposite in order to deregulate certain industries such as automobiles or thermal power plants.

Republicans in Congress are also seeking to pass an immunity law that would block prosecutions of oil tankers.

The Court's decision will be rendered by June 2027.

Only eight of the nine justices will decide, with ultraconservative Samuel Alito recusing himself because of his portfolio of oil and gas stocks. There are five curators remaining; a four-four tie would keep Colorado's decision in place and allow the case to continue its path to trial.

© 2026 AFP

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.