A new essay responding to Michael Buschbacher pushes back against the argument that the Supreme Court should block Boulder County's climate lawsuit against fossil fuel producers. The essay insists that the central issue in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County is narrow: whether the plaintiffs' state-law claims are entirely precluded, not whether the claims are ambitious, speculative, or in need of trimming. Because the petitioners seek only to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's decision allowing the case to proceed, the essay argues that review should be denied.
The essay also rejects Buschbacher's framing that the case is about states regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, the claims seek compensation for harms allegedly caused by the production and marketing of fossil fuels, which is a routine application of state tort law to out-of-state conduct. On preemption, the essay distinguishes International Paper v. Ouellette: that case involved a Clean Water Act permit scheme where applying Vermont law would impose conflicting standards on a federally regulated point source. Boulder's claims, by contrast, do not target emissions subject to federal regulation, and Ouellette itself preserved common-law nuisance suits in affected states.
The essay acknowledges legitimate concerns about states imposing their policy choices on neighbors, but argues those concerns cut both ways. They may support narrowing the scope of damages or remedies, but they do not justify a wholesale constitutional bar on state-law claims. Since the federal government has not preempted such claims, the essay concludes, the Court should let the case proceed. The source is a single opinion piece, so no conflicting sources are noted.