United StatesThe article discusses the filing of an amicus brief in the case of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which is set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in October. The case centers on whether the Clean Air Act or the Constitution preempt state-law claims related to injuries caused by climate change. The author of the brief argues that these preemption claims lack merit, asserting that nothing in federal law or the Constitution prevents state-law claims seeking relief for harms allegedly caused by fossil fuel producers. The author emphasizes that allowing the case to proceed would not enable states to impose universal rules on all fossil fuel producers globally. They also note that while proving causation may be complicated due to the inability to trace emissions, this does not justify preemption. The author recommends reviewing the briefs by Professors Derek Muller and Ben Johnson for further insight into the procedural jurisdictional issues.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as one where state-law claims for climate-related harm should not be preempted by federal law. It challenges the argument that the Clean Air Act or the Constitution categorically bar such claims, suggesting that federal law allows for such lawsuits despite federal-regime
