最高法院法官周一对各州的诉讼表示谨慎，这些诉讼可能会对能源生产商造成巨大的损害，因为全球气候变化的影响。相反，他们中的一些人建议这些地方和州的索赔可能会被联邦清洁空气法阻止。“州际空气和水污染是联邦法律的问题，”法官布雷特M。卡瓦诺“我们不必重新发明轮子。除非国会另有规定，否则这种污染是联邦事务。“埃琳娜·卡根法官似乎同意这一点。她说，各州的诉讼“阻碍了国会如何决定监管温室气体”。法院面临的问题是城市和州是否可以就气候变化造成的损害起诉石油和天然气生产商。加利福尼亚州和近三十个州和市已提出此类索赔，但尚未接受审判。去年，科罗拉多州最高法院裁定博尔德县可以向当地法院提起赔偿诉讼。最高法院同意听取特朗普政府支持的石油行业的上诉。其律师辩称，宪法和联邦法律不允许在地方法院解决此类索赔。首席大法官约翰·G罗伯茨听起来对打开气候变化诉讼浪潮的大门持怀疑态度。“将会有50个不同的城市。结果会如何？”他问博尔德的一位律师。在两小时争论的大部分时间里，法官们都在争论联邦法律是否对此类诉讼施加限制，或者各州及其法官是否可以自由地为他们所遭受的伤害寻求赔偿。他们没有发出明确的结果，但大多数人听起来似乎倾向于说联邦法律管辖如此深远的损害索赔。能源生产商在州法院败诉后转向最高法院。他们希望高等法院能够停止三十多起寻求气候变化影响赔偿的诉讼。
The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change. Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act. "Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law," said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. "We don't have reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise." Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits "get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases," she said. At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change. California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.
到目前为止，全国各地的法官意见分歧。一些人裁定，联邦法律优先于或阻止州和县根据州法律起诉。但包括科罗拉多州最高法院在内的其他人裁定，这些诉讼可以根据州法律进行。塞缪尔·A.坚定的保守派阿利托表示，他不参与此案，大概是因为他拥有将受到裁决影响的石油公司股票。如果法院以4比4的比分分裂并且无法做出裁决，这对石油行业来说将是非常失望的，因为它将允许所有气候变化诉讼继续进行，至少目前是这样。
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. "There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?" he asked a lawyer representing Boulder. For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered. They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims. The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court. They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change. So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law. But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law. Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling. If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.