As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Suncor v. Boulder, a once-local climate lawsuit is packed with threats to the First Amendment lurking just below the waterline. At stake is not simply whether federal law preempts state tort claims arising from climate change, but whether state and local governments may use those claims to punish disfavored speakers for what they said about fossil fuels, climate policy, and their own place in the national economy.If that theory survives, it will not remain confined to energy companies — it will open the way to regulate everyone’s speech.As we told the Supreme Court in our amicus brief, the issue is not that everything energy companies ever said in defense of fossil fuels was correct. Our point is that Boulder is trying to compel everyone to agree to only one side of a public debate. The speech at issue includes public statements, ads, and other forms of protected speech, including petitioning activity directed at legislators, regulators, and the public on one of the most intensely contested issues in modern American life.
BLIND TO IRONY, UN HOLDS CLIMATE SUMMIT IN NATION CRIPPLED BY GREEN MANDATES
At the heart of the case are allegations by Boulder and other Colorado localities that major energy companies helped cause climate change and misled the public about the climate effects of fossil fuels. They seek huge damages on that basis. They target particular speakers, a particular subject, and a particular viewpoint in a live public controversy.
