Briev
Live
Politics

Amicus Brief Argues State Climate Laws Aren't Preempted by Federal Rules

A legal scholar filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, contending that neither the Clean Air Act nor the Constitution bars state-law climate claims.

In a newly filed amicus brief for Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the author challenges the notion that federal statutes or the Constitution preempt state-law climate lawsuits. The brief asserts that the Clean Air Act was intended to supplement state environmental regimes and does not forbid state tort claims, even when the alleged harm stems from interstate pollution.

It further argues that constitutional text provides no support for a categorical bar to such suits and that any preemptive rule must come from Congress, not the judiciary. The brief also rejects foreign-affairs preemption arguments, noting the absence of a conflicting treaty, and sets aside First Amendment issues as outside the case’s scope. The author cites earlier blog posts and recommends other amicus briefs for insight into procedural questions. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on these matters in October.

Why it matters

The brief could influence how U.S. courts treat state climate lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies.

In this story

amicus briefClean Air Actstate law preemptionclimate change litigationSupreme Courtenvironmental tortfederalisminterstate pollution