美国最高法院新年度开庭日定于周一，首场辩论聚焦于企业应对气候变化承担责任的议题。
The new Supreme Court term kicks off Monday with arguments over corporate accountability for climate change.
大法官们不会裁定石油和天然气公司是否确实对全球变暖及其造成的损害负有责任。相反，在“森科公司诉博尔德市”一案中，上诉的核心问题是：旨在追究这些公司责任的诉讼是否具备继续进行的条件。
The justices won’t resolve whether oil and gas companies are, in fact, responsible for global warming and its resulting damage. Rather, the appeal in Suncor v. Boulder asks whether litigation that seeks to hold them liable can even proceed.
通常情况下，由九名大法官组成的完整法庭将对此作出裁决。但令人意外的是，萨缪尔·阿利托大法官上周宣布回避，此前外界因其持有能源行业相关财务利益而呼吁其退出审理。
Typically, the full nine-member bench would answer that question. But Justice Samuel Alito surprisingly recused himself last week, following calls to step aside due to his financial interests in the energy industry.
这位由共和党总统任命的大法官缺席，使得最高法院可能无法对该问题作出裁决，而是以4比4的票数陷入僵局。平票的结果实际上将维持科罗拉多州最高法院的判决，而该判决正是企业希望联邦最高法院推翻的，这意味着全国范围内企业气候责任的最终命运仍悬而未决。
The GOP appointee’s absence raises the possibility that the court won’t answer the question at all but will instead deadlock 4-4 A tie would effectively uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that the companies want the justices to overturn, leaving the nationwide fate of corporate liability undecided. Monday’s hearing, slated for 10 a.m.
周一的听证会定于美国东部时间上午10点举行，届时将有助于判断僵局是否是一种现实可能，或者法院在其他情况下倾向于何种立场。（大法官们的口头辩论不进行电视转播，但会进行音频直播。预计该案件及本开庭期内其他案件的判决将于7月前作出，听证会将从10月持续至次年4月。）“具有非凡的重要性”此案源于博尔德县和市政府官员对埃克森美孚公司和森科能源公司提起的诉讼。
ET, should give a sense of whether that is a realistic possibility or which way the court is leaning otherwise. (The justices don’t televise their arguments but they do stream the audio A ruling is expected by July in this case and in the others that will be argued this term, with hearings running from October through April. ‘Extraordinary importance’The case stems from a lawsuit brought by Boulder county and city officials against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy.
博尔德方面要求赔偿，理由是这些公司在生产、推广、精炼、营销和销售化石燃料的过程中，加剧了气候变化，并对当地财产和居民造成了损害。
Boulder sought damages for the companies’ role in producing, promoting, refining, marketing and selling fossil fuels that allegedly exacerbated climate change and harmed the area’s property and residents.
在诉讼的初步阶段，科罗拉多州最高法院支持了博尔德方面的立场。该法院指出，此案涉及“具有全球重大意义的重大问题”，但当前阶段的法律问题是“狭窄”的：即州级初审法院认定这些诉求可依据州法继续审理是否恰当。科罗拉多州最高法院认为可以，并驳回了企业方面关于联邦法律禁止此类诉讼的主张。
Siding with Boulder at a preliminary stage of the litigation, the state’s Supreme Court said that the case raises “substantial issues of global import” but that the legal question at this point is “narrow”: whether the state trial court properly found the claims can proceed under state law. The Colorado court said it can, rejecting the corporate argument that federal law bars the suit. The state court emphasized that it wasn’t deciding whether Boulder’s claims would ultimately succeed, only that the case could proceed.
州法院强调，它并不是决定博尔德的主张最终是否成功，而是决定案件是否可以继续进行。
The companies appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging review of what they called a matter of “extraordinary importance to the energy industry,” which they said faces “dozens of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the alleged effects of global climate change.”
这些公司向美国最高法院提出上诉，敦促审查他们所说的“对能源行业极其重要”的问题，他们表示，能源行业面临“数十起诉讼，要求因所谓的全球气候变化影响而赔偿数十亿美元”。他们表示，由于温室气体排放的州际和国际性质，像博尔德这样的诉讼无法向前推进。这些公司在听证会前的简短声明中表示：“国家侵权法不是解决全球气候变化的解决方案。”他们警告说，在本案中打开法院大门可能会摧毁全国各地的公司。
They said suits like Boulder’s can’t move forward due to the interstate and international nature of greenhouse gas emissions. “State tort law is not the solution to global climate change,” the companies said in a brief ahead of the hearing, warning that opening the courthouse doors in this case could destroy corporations around the country. “Giving even a single jury the power to impose ruinous liability on selected members of the energy industry is a recipe for chaos. Unleashing juries nationwide is a recipe for disaster,” their brief said. The Trump administration and the Chamber of Commerce are among the outside supporters echoing those business fears.
“即使赋予一个陪审团对能源行业的选定成员施加毁灭性责任的权力，也会导致混乱。在全国范围内释放陪审团是一场灾难，”他们的简报说。特朗普政府和商会等外部支持者也呼应了这些商业担忧。
The court granted the companies’ request to review the matter over Boulder’s multiple objections including that it would be premature for the justices to step in at this stage of the litigation. It takes four justices to grant review.
法院批准了两家公司审查此事的请求，尽管博尔德提出了多项反对意见，其中包括法官在诉讼的现阶段介入为时过早。
It’s unclear whether Alito was one of them because that vote tally isn’t public.
需要四名法官才能批准审查。目前尚不清楚阿利托是否是其中之一，因为计票结果尚未公开。听证会可能表明，在由八名成员组成的法庭中，是否有五名或更多法官似乎准备站在这些公司一边。即使没有阿利托，仍有五名共和党任命的法官审理此案。但是，这里联邦与州权力的法律问题并不一定适用于政党路线的裁决。
The hearing could signal whether there are five or more justices on the eight-member tribunal who appear poised to side with the companies. There are still five Republican-appointed justices hearing the case, even without Alito. But the legal issue of federal vs. state power here doesn’t necessarily lend itself to a party-line ruling. On that note, a law professor who has criticized other climate litigation submitted a brief backing Boulder’s legal position without endorsing whether or not the companies should ultimately be held liable. “Nothing in federal law, let alone the Constitution, preempts state-law claims seeking relief from injuries allegedly caused or exacerbated by” the companies’ conduct, the professor, Jonathan Adler, said in an amicus brief He said the Supreme Court “has long understood” that suits like Boulder’s can proceed “even if they are viewed as efforts to seek redress for interstate pollution subject to federal regulation.”
在这一点上，一位批评其他气候诉讼的法学教授提交了一份支持博尔德法律立场的简报，但没有支持这些公司最终是否应该承担责任。
Whether the drastic consequences the companies warn of will help them smooth over any legal weakness in their position is something to watch for during Monday’s oral argument.
乔纳森·阿德勒（Jonathan Adler）教授在一份法庭之友简报中表示，“联邦法律中的任何内容，更不用说宪法了，优先于寻求救济据称由公司行为造成或加剧的伤害的州法律索赔。”他说，最高法院“早就明白”像博尔德这样的诉讼可以继续进行，“即使它们被视为寻求赔偿联邦监管的州际污染的努力。”在周一的口头辩论中，这些公司警告的严重后果是否会帮助他们克服其立场中的任何法律弱点，这是值得关注的。
‘Transparently alarmist’When the court agreed to review the appeal, it said that on top of the preemption issue, it also wants to hear the parties’ positions on whether the justices have jurisdiction to consider the case at all. Boulder said no, citing the early procedural stage of the litigation at which Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled.
“完全危言耸听”当法院同意审查上诉时，它表示，除了优先权问题之外，它还希望听取各方关于法官是否有管辖权审理此案的立场。博尔德以科罗拉多州最高法院裁决的诉讼的早期程序阶段为由拒绝了。博尔德认为，州法院的裁决不是最终裁决，因此不适合美国最高法院的审查，并补充说，如果这些公司被判负有责任，随时可以在稍后上诉。
The state court ruling wasn’t a final decision and is therefore inappropriate for U.S. Supreme Court review, Boulder argued, adding that the companies can always appeal later if they are found liable. On the merits of the issue, the Colorado authorities said their suit is hardly the unprecedented danger that the companies make it out to be. They said in their brief ahead of the hearing that “countless” civil suits cross state lines, including interstate environmental cases that have been around since the nation’s founding.
关于这个问题的是非曲直，科罗拉多州当局表示，他们的诉讼并不像这些公司所说的那样具有前所未有的危险。他们在听证会前的简报中表示，“无数”跨州民事诉讼，包括自建国以来一直存在的州际环境案件。
Also among Boulder’s outside backers are national municipal government groups, who called the companies’ stance “transparently alarmist without real basis,” as well as members of Congress, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse D-R.I., and Rep.
博尔德的外部支持者还包括全国性市政府团体，他们称这些公司的立场“毫无根据，毫无根据”，以及以参议员为首的国会议员。谢尔登·怀特豪斯DR.I.和众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（华盛顿州民主党籍众议员）告诉大法官们，各州在该领域发挥着重要作用，而这些公司正试图“颠覆维护州权力的联邦制宪法基石原则。”
Pramila Jayapal D-Wash., who told the justices that states have a powerful role to play in this area and that the companies are trying to “subvert bedrock constitutional principles of federalism that preserve state power.” to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases. The post Alito’s absence could give oil companies a tougher path in Supreme Court term opener MS NOW