The upcoming case of Suncor Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County is set to examine whether state law suits targeting energy companies for their contributions to climate change are superseded by federal law. As the court convenes for its new term, the focus will be on the contentious and often enigmatic doctrine of preemption.
Preemption, which arises from Article VI of the Constitution, dictates that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict. Historically, the Supreme Court has categorized preemption into express and implied types, with the latter further divided into conflict, obstacle, and field preemption. Despite these categorizations, consistent patterns in the court’s decisions are elusive.
In recent sessions, the court’s handling of preemption has shown variability. Last term, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the court determined that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempted state tort claims, while in Watson v. Republican National Committee, it ruled that state election procedures were not preempted by federal law.
The Colorado Supreme Court previously ruled that Boulder’s claims against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy were not preempted by federal law, suggesting that the Clean Air Act did not expressly preempt state-level actions and that there was no field preemption. The state court dismissed the notion of conflict preemption, noting that compliance with both federal and state laws was feasible.
The energy companies in Suncor assert several arguments for preemption: firstly, that the Constitution bars states from regulating pollution due to its interstate nature; secondly, that the Clean Air Act implicitly precludes state tort liability; and lastly, that domestic tort claims might interfere with U.S. foreign policy—a doctrine akin to the reasoning in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council and American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi.
The implications of this case are significant. While preemption cases frequently appear before the court, Suncor presents unique constitutional and foreign policy preemption arguments. It is an illustrative example of how the preemption doctrine remains a complex and critical area of jurisprudence, especially as it intersects with global issues like climate change.
For a detailed exploration of the case, see the full article on SCOTUSblog.