The US Supreme Court has begun its new term by considering an important case, Suncor v Boulder, which involves several Colorado localities suing Suncor and ExxonMobil. This case is one of approximately three dozen filed across the US, where cities and states are seeking reimbursement from major oil companies for the increasing costs of climate disasters attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
During Monday's proceedings, at least four justices, with Samuel Alito recused, expressed skepticism about the argument from big oil companies that the Clean Air Act explicitly prevents such lawsuits against polluters. Justice Elena Kagan questioned the basis for this argument, asking, "Where is the text for that? Where's the support for that? Where's the precedent for that? Where's the anything for that?"
Chief Justice John Roberts drew parallels between the Boulder claim and previous successful lawsuits against the tobacco and opioid industries. He stated, "I'm not quite sure what makes this situation different from all those other ones where we've allowed them to proceed in state court." Past settlements include $206 billion from leading US tobacco companies in 1998, which translates to over $423 billion in current dollars, and $7.4 billion from the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma for the opioid crisis.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor and a Guardian US columnist, suggests that such liability lawsuits could also be relevant to risks posed by AI. He notes that if AI agents cause harm, companies could face tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in payments, a financial risk that major AI investors and insurers are unlikely to ignore.