The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder, a case about energy companies and climate change that could determine whether America’s energy policy is effectively dictated by local judges scattered across the country, mostly in progressive enclaves.
Boulder’s lawsuit pushes against more than energy companies; it challenges the structural constitutional protections that ensure equal sovereignty among the states.
That’s why, on behalf of Alabama, I led a coalition of 26 state attorneys general to urge the Supreme Court to hear the case. My colleagues and I share the simple conviction that national energy policy should not be set in courtrooms across the country at the behest of liberal enclaves that have seen their views increasingly rejected at the ballot box and in the halls of Congress. We believe the Supreme Court should take this case now, before the pool of cases from which it arises grows further, and thereby help prevent our nation’s economy from being governed by courtroom edicts emanating from places such as Boulder, Honolulu, or Oakland.
In this case, Boulder is attempting to reshape the American economy through litigation, threatening to take over policymaking for cities far outside Colorado’s state lines and undermining the equal sovereignty of other states. The city and county of Boulder are suing America’s energy producers, with Boulder’s politicians seeking billions of dollars based on the claim that the production and sale of fossil fuels causes global climate change.
But while the lawsuit cites state tort law, its ambitions are anything but local. It asks state courts to assign global blame to America’s energy producers for a century of energy use here and abroad. And we know from the advocates who push these cases that the real goal is to install progressive enclaves as the owners of our energy infrastructure through the mix of massive state-court judgments (such as the one sought by Boulder) and the bankruptcy process.
This is not how the Framers designed our system to work. And time is of the essence. What’s happening in Boulder is not a one‑off lawsuit; it’s part of a coordinated, nationwide campaign.
After sweeping climate proposals collapsed in Congress, activist lawyers shifted their strategy, turning to the courts to achieve through creative tort claims what the democratic process refused to deliver. These climate cases share the common goal of sidestepping the legislative process while pursuing multibillion‑dollar paydays from energy producers.
Now, dozens of state and local governments have joined the effort, demanding staggering sums under the banner of “climate justice.” But these lawsuits are not designed to help citizens; they aim to use the threat of massive verdicts to impose national energy policy from the bench rather than the ballot box.
If Boulder’s lawsuit moves forward, it will not be long before courts across the country follow. Inevitably, a patchwork of conflicting rulings and judicial regulation will emerge. And don’t forget, the remedies Boulder seeks would require far-reaching policies that obstruct every other state’s ability to regulate energy (and therefore the economy) within its borders, meaning that as these cases proliferate, we would expect to see local judges become de facto regulators of America’s energy supply and, by definition, the economies of states such as mine.
THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHIZER MODEL MELTDOWN
The effects of this runaway train would extend far beyond boardrooms. Energy producers would come under the de facto control of progressive judges and progressive city politicians, American families would pay more for fuel, and higher energy costs would ripple through every good and service. Allowing these cases to proliferate would erode federalism, invite ideological policymaking from the bench, and weaken our structural constitutional protections.
And the cases will keep coming to the Supreme Court, pressing the same set of core questions in ever-worsening postures for clear and effective judicial review and functional guidance for lower courts. It is better for the court to take them on the present terms than to wait until it is asked to step in after a multibillion-dollar post-trial verdict or a remedial order that takes control of the nation’s economy. The Supreme Court should grant review in Suncor Energy v. Boulder and reaffirm that national policy must come from elected representatives, not piecemeal litigation.
Steve Marshall is the 48th attorney general of Alabama and a candidate for Senate.
