-
Trump says US moved bombers from UK base after 'threats'
-
Riyadh's allies pledge troops as Yemen, Saudi Arabia attack Houthis
-
Brazilian stocks surge to record after Bolsonaro election lead
-
Clashes erupt outside Kosovo parliament over war crimes court
-
Leaders to visit Pacific atoll at frontline of climate change
-
Milan's Saelemaekers suffers ankle setback, faces lengthy spell out
-
ICC gives more details about arrest warrants for Taliban ministers
-
Rubio arrives in Iceland to push for greater US presence in Arctic
-
Nigeria's Tinubu confirms 32 dead after military plane crash
-
Putin allows Italy's UniCredit to sell part of Russian business
-
'Reckless' AI firms can't control models, says whistleblower
-
Djokovic into China Open final as Medvedev out for hitting fan with ball
-
Switching on brain cells: the Nobel-winning science of optogenetics
-
ICC unseals arrest warrants for Taliban education ministers
-
Quebec votes as separatist surge poses test for Canada PM
-
Modric hopes fans back Croatia against Spain after England shame
-
Euro slides as concerns about French debt mount
-
Bolsonaro rides right-wing surge into Brazil's election runoff
-
Former Trump press secretary Leavitt joins Fox News
-
Turkey blocks X account of British reporter
-
Djokovic advances to China Open final as Medvedev out for hitting fan with ball
-
Ukraine says using AI robot guns to shoot down new Russian drones
-
Disgraced former US House speaker dies at 84
-
At Oct 7 memorial, Netanyahu says will be no Hamas rule in Gaza
-
Euro slides as worries about French debt grow
-
Ukraine blames Russia for deadly sinking of Turkish ship in Black Sea
-
US withdraws all bomber aircraft from UK airbase
-
UN rights council slams Taliban's 'oppression' of women
-
Drone hits Ethiopia IDP camp as fears grow of regional war
-
Norway eyes partial ban of smart glasses
-
US-German trio wins medicine Nobel for illuminating the brain
-
Two dead after ship catches fire, sinks in Black Sea
-
England captain Kane driven by desire for records says Tuchel
-
Spain's PM calls snap election after housing bill defeat
-
N.Irish court hears challenge to disputed Orangemen parade
-
STARCARES Equips Seven Foster Homes for Children and Young People in Tanzania
-
Talking points from the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia
-
Alleged Indian leader of neo-Nazi child abuse ring goes on trial in Paris
-
Yemen, Saudi Arabia target Houthis in new campaign as war escalates
-
Euro, French stocks slide on France debt concerns
-
US-German trio wins medicine Nobel for work on optogenetics
-
Alcaraz advances to Japan Open final
-
Swiatek, Zheng survive three-set tests in China Open third round
-
US-German trio win medicine Nobel for work on optogenetics
-
Hasan says Test cricket momentum turning for Bangladesh
-
Hundreds of French high schools shut as protests persist
-
Intense heat puts births in jeopardy, UN tells Fiji talks
-
Spain PM calls early election after housing crisis defeat
-
US arrests woman accused of spying for China on Taiwan leader's family
-
Stocks rally as 'Goldilocks' jobs data ease rate fears
US Supreme Court judges mull bid to shut the door on climate suits
The US Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a crunch climate case, with justices wrestling over whether it followed the well-worn path of corporate accountability lawsuits or was instead a backdoor attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The outcome of Suncor v. Boulder could wipe out dozens of similar lawsuits brought by jurisdictions nationwide, seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for their role in global warming and for allegedly carrying out deception campaigns to conceal their products' harms.
Outside the court, activists waved placards and decried the rising costs of climate catastrophes, calling on "Big Oil" to be held accountable for their "climate lies."
The city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018 for damages, claiming they "knowingly caused and contributed to the alteration of the climate" while "concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers" of oil and gas.
They contend they have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses from wildfires, flooding and other weather extremes stemming from climate change linked to the burning of fossil fuels.
But Kannon Shanmugam, representing the oil giants, told justices the case "involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct."
Under Boulder's theory, he argued, they could "sue me on a nuisance claim for refilling my car and thereby contributing to global climate change."
But liberal Justice Elena Kagan pushed back, describing the case as "chapter three" in the story of corporate accountability lawsuits, where earlier chapters were litigation against the tobacco industry and against pharmaceutical companies that pushed opioids.
- Trump administration weighs in -
The companies lost bids to have the case dismissed in state court and at Colorado's Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump's climate skeptical administration filed a brief urging the US Supreme Court to take up the case, and the justices agreed.
The court is considering whether federal law -- specifically the Clean Air Act (CAA) -- preempts Boulder's claims, whether the Constitution itself bars such suits, and whether it can review the case before a trial has taken place.
Complicating matters, the court may also have to weigh the Trump administration's recent decision to overturn the landmark "Endangerment Finding," with the executive now saying Congress did not give it the power to regulate greenhouse emissions under the CAA.
Questioning Department of Justice attorney Sarah Harris, Chief Justice John Roberts showed some skepticism towards the government's position, saying "there are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states" and state litigation is permitted.
But Roberts also pressed Kevin Russell, the attorney for Boulder, telling him the suit "is an effort to reduce emissions."
"No, it is not an effort to reduce emissions," replied Russell, arguing that under Boulder's deception theory the companies "can continue to produce as much fossil fuels as they like" so long as consumers are properly informed.
Katrina Kuh, a professor of environmental law at Pace University, told AFP that a ruling on the federal law questions would matter for many pending suits.
"It could extinguish them entirely," she said. But the justices could also kick the can down the road by deciding the case isn't yet ready for review, she added. A decision is expected by next June.
- New law? -
The questions also bear on so-called "climate superfunds" -- laws in New York and Vermont that would make polluters pay for climate resilience projects.
New York's was struck down by a federal judge last month, and an adverse Supreme Court ruling could shut the door to it being revived on appeal.
Ahead of the hearing, ultraconservative Justice Samuel Alito recused himself after critics called on him to step aside over his oil and gas stock holdings, reducing the number of judges down to eight and leaving a 4-4 split possible -- which would leave the Colorado ruling in place and let the case proceed to trial.
Congress may however render all this moot. Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass an immunity shield that would void all such cases.
L.Mason--AMWN