Insights & Events

Law360 published an expert analysis article by Hollingsworth LLP attorneys Pete Chattrabhuti and Dina Truncali examining the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Court”) to grant certiorari in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. This decision may answer what effect, if any, the rescission of EPA’s endangerment finding has on preemption arguments in suits involving state tort law claims related to alleged climate change-based harms.

In Suncor, the County and City of Boulder sued a variety of energy companies in Colorado state court alleging common-law claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. After the Colorado Supreme Court held that Boulder’s claims were not preempted, defendants petitioned the Court to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, contending that federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for climate injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. While this petition was pending, EPA officially eliminated its 2009 Endangerment Finding, which granted EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases and also served as a basis for preemption and displacement arguments in climate change cases.

The Court has previously received petitions from energy companies in similar climate change cases seeking to answer this same question but did not grant review. A confluence of factors likely led the Court to grant certification in this instance, including the opportunity for the Court to determine whether rescission of the Endangerment Finding leaves a gap in the law.

This case warrants close monitoring because the effect of EPA’s rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the subsequent repeal of the greenhouse gas emission standards that were born of it will surely be tested in courts for years to come. This is particularly relevant given the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 639 (2024), which overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent according governmental agencies great deference in their interpretation of the statutes they enforce. For additional analysis regarding the effect of Loper Bright on claims involving environmental contamination, please read Hollingsworth LLP’s recent article, The Impact of Loper Bright on Claims Involving Environmental Contamination.

Subscribers can read the article at Law360.com