Tangle - SCOTUS returns with a climate change case.

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

On Monday, the new Supreme Court term began with oral arguments in a case over whether cities can sue energy companies for contributing to climate change. The arguments center on two major issues: whether federal law should block local governments from suing energy companies under state law, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on the matter. Justice Samuel Alito, who is not involved with the companies named in the case but owns stocks in the energy industry, recused himself from the case.The latest Suspension of the Rules.This week's Suspension of the Rules spans several topics. First, as the midterms draw near, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele get ready with their election hot takes. Then, which former Tangle guests are getting themselves in hot water? And does the left have an anti-semitism problem? All this and more on today’s episode! Listen here or watch it here. Our latest YouTube video.A year after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., Assistant Producer Aidan Gorman visits the capital to ask: Have these troops made our capital safer? The answer isn’t straightforward. You can check out our latest YouTube video here.Ad-free podcasts are here!Get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle’s podcast membership!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Take the survey: Should states be able to sue energy companies for damages related to climate change? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Will Kaback and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Audrey Moorehead, and Carina Pacheco. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast. A place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I am your host today, senior editor, Will Kback, and today we are rounding out our week of regular editions with the opening case of the Supreme Court's new term. Now, I spent yesterday reading through the transcripts of the oral arguments in this case, and I have to say, big picture, I was struck, as I usually am when we cover the court, by how the issues that can seem dry and technical on the surface come alive when they're interrogated by the justices. Now, this one is a bit of a doozy. It touches on climate change,

the energy industry, big oil, federalism concerns. But we're going to dive right into the heart of the core questions in this case and try to parse exactly what the implications of the ruling will be. We've also got a reader question about the national debt, and then we'll finish up with a heartening story of a very resilient tree. Before we get into it, flagging that today we have a new episode of suspension of the rules out. In this one, we're focusing on the midterms, and Isaac, Ari, and Camille are giving their election hot takes. They also have a thought-provoking discussion about past Tangle guests who are in hot water and causing some controversy. And they also ask about whether the left has an anti-Semitism problem. You can find all that and more in today's episode.

It is up on our YouTube channel right now and it is also in the Tangle podcast feed. So go and check that out after today's episode. All right. Now let's start off with today's quick hits. Number one, the Pentagon has directed the U.S. military to prepare for new strikes on Iran as President Donald Trump reportedly weighs resuming combat operations. Number two, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested an 18-year-old man for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack at the Mall of America in Minnesota.

Three, Russia's health regulators said, quote, no emergency situations occurred at a disease research lab, where a researcher died after contracting pneumonia of an unknown origin. Number four, the Democratic National Committee sued the Trump administration for using federal funds to pay for allegedly partisan national television advertisements. And number five, Hurricane Isaiah is forecast to make landfall along the U.S. Gulf Coast this weekend. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Alabama Governor K. Ivy have declared states of emergency. The Supreme Court opening its new.

term today with a high-stakes showdown that could decide whether cities and states can hold major oil companies financially responsible for the costs of environmental harms. Another case focuses on the separation of powers. On Monday, the new Supreme Court term began with oral arguments in a case over whether cities can sue energy companies for contributing to climate change. The argument center on two major issues, whether federal law should block local governments from suing energy companies under state law, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on this matter. Justice Samuel Alito, who is not involved with the companies named in the case but does own stocks in the energy industry, has recused himself from the case. In 2018, Boulder County and the city

of Boulder, Colorado filed a state lawsuit against the energy companies. Suncor and Exxon on the grounds that the two companies had concealed and misrepresented the effects of climate change, exacerbating its effects, damaging Boulder's property and residence. The energy companies sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that they could not be held subject to state laws on climate change. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder had standing to sue under state law. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the company's challenge to the Colorado courts ruling back in February. During oral arguments on Monday, the energy companies argued that state law cannot be used to,

quote, regulate global conduct. Longstanding court precedent leaves issues of climate change and emissions to federal law, and allowing local jurisdictions to sue for damages would unfairly burden global companies like Suncor and Exxon. Boulder County argued that states have long had the power to remedy local harms, even when the conduct that led to the injury occurred elsewhere. The justices' positions during oral arguments appeared mixed. Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Kentonji Brown Jackson, and Alina Kagan

asked several questions about the court's jurisdiction over the case. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Kagan, each question whether past precedent allowing state laws to apply to larger companies should guide the court's decision. Justice's Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barritt questioned whether allowing Boulder's lawsuit would create too wide an avenue for future litigation. Now we'll have views from the right and the left on the case and then I will give my take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Here's what the right is saying. Many on the right note the broader implications of the case. Some argue that the Supreme Court should rule against Boulder and others say that the legal framework of climate lawsuits is often flawed. In the Washington Post, Michael Toth argued this Supreme Court case is much bigger than oil and gas. The underlying question should be straightforward. Can a state or local government regulate emissions that occur somewhere else?

Under the city's theory, any company that sells products in a state or municipality could be sued there for its worldwide emissions, even if only a tiny fraction occurred in the jurisdiction bringing the suit. Letting a state court apportioned responsibility for global energy demand isn't adjudication. It's a usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority over foreign affairs. Boulder invokes a Clean Air Act provision, preserving state's authority to set stricter emission standards than Washington. But the Constitution does not allow a state to impose its standards on emissions occurring beyond its borders. Suncor is bigger than oil and gas. It is about whether any company meeting global demand for its products can be regulated from any courthouse in America at any time for conduct occurring somewhere else.

In the Daily Caller, David Blackman called the original lawsuit Climate Lawfare. This Boulder case is not even the latest in this blatant lawfare campaign, which is designed less to win judgments than to extract pounds of flesh from the industry. defendants via tens of millions of dollars wasted on litigation costs. It is lawfare, not environmental stewardship. Every dollar wasted by the industry throughout this lawfare campaign means a dollar less being spent on drilling, refining, or keeping power and fuel prices affordable. The courts, regulatory agencies, and Justice Department have repeatedly ruled during the administrations of both parties that climate change policy on national scale has to be handled by the federal government. The justices should tell Boulder and its lawfare attorneys no, but Justice Samuel

Alito's recent recusal leaves open the possibility that a 4-4 split might leave the mess made in the lower courts in place. That is a very bad place for America and its future energy security to be. In Bloomberg law, Donald Cochan said the court has the chance to end legally flawed climate claims. The case could have major implications for federal state balance, separation of powers, and the availability of creative and market disruptive lawsuits across dozens of cases nationwide. In a past case, AEP versus Connecticut, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a unanimous opinion, holding that public nuisance and related claims based on alleged harms from the transboundary effects of emissions would, by default, be governed by federal common law, if any were to exist.

Any attempts to inject requirements beyond what Congress set in the Clean Air Act would upset the delicate balancing that Congress is allowed when setting national and international policy in such areas, and that's according to Ginsburg's opinion. Since that AEP decision, plaintiff's attorneys have developed creative litigation strategies. The Supreme Court in Suncor can put an end to at least one area of this entrepreneurial lawyering that has gone on far too long. Now here's what the left is saying. The left hopes the court will allow local governments to seek damages for climate-related harms. Many expect the justices to rule against Boulder.

Others say that oil companies want the Supreme Court to let them off the hook. In the nation, Ellie Mistal wrote, this lawsuit could make big oil pay for the harm that it's caused. If this lawsuit isn't dismissed, it could allow local governments and maybe even individual citizens to sue energy companies for the effects of climate change. People might be able to sue for everything from adverse health outcomes to lost property. It could fundamentally change the way that oil and gas companies operate across the country and most likely across the entire world.

But the lawsuit is not going to be successful. Unlike the tobacco industry, this is big oil we're talking about, an industry with a market valuation upwards of $4 trillion. I think a win here for Boulder could, wreck the fossil fuel industry, which is why the Supreme Court won't let that happen. It'd be chaos, glorious, righteous chaos, but what's sad is that the court will care more about the practical effect of climate change lawsuits than the practical effects of climate change. In Vox, Ian Milheiser suggested the court is looking for a way to kill climate lawsuits.

The outcome in Suncor is uncertain. The oil companies led with a weak legal argument, and only Kavanaugh seemed to fully embrace that argument. Many of the justices appear bothered that these lawsuits exist, but the most skeptical justices couldn't agree on a legal theory they could use to shut them down. Under our Constitution, the proper solution if the oil companies want federal law to preempt state court suits like Suncor is that they can lobby Congress, and Congress can draft a statute. Congress has the power, for example, to combine all of these state lawsuits

into one grand federal lawsuit, where a single proceeding could determine how to portion out the costs of climate change to various energy companies and how to divide whatever these companies are ordered to pay among the various plaintiffs. But that solution would undoubtedly require compromises that companies like Exxon will not like.

So instead, they've asked the Supreme Court to give them the legal regime that they want. In balls and strikes, Mediba K. Deni argued, oil companies are begging the court to let them off the hook. Boulder has already spent over $100 million repairing damages related to climate change and expects to spend over $100 million more in order to pay to adapt its infrastructure over the next 25 years. Climate change has a hefty price tag,

which is why dozens of state and local governments like Boulder have filed lawsuits to force culprits to pay the costs. It's also why polluters like Suncor Energy and Exxon are desperate to get the lawsuits thrown out of court. Although the court routinely takes the side of corporate power over people and the planet, Justice Sam Alito's last-minute recusal from the case means Boulder only needs one Republican justice to defect. As the federal government's response to the climate crisis ranges from disinterest to disdainful, state and local governments have had to ask, can't anyone do anything about this harm?

Again and again, the court's answer has been no. Now, the prospect of accountability turns on getting to, a single Republican justice to say yes. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying. So now let's get into my take. In the long run, this could end up being one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of this term. Boulder suit against Suncor and Exxon charges that energy companies are financially liable

for environmental harms caused by fossil fuel-driven climate change. And if that claim succeeds, it could both create a path for other cities and states to bring similar suits, and compel energy companies to shift their business models away from fossil fuels. In the short run, however, the court won't be ruling on the merits of the suit. Instead, it's weighing whether Boulder can sue at all. And that question is a bit more technical, but the court's ruling will determine the long-term trajectory of this case and others like it. Now, I found Monday's oral arguments compelling on both sides. Canon Shanmogam, the attorney representing Suncor and Exxon,

centered the court's past rulings on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, arguing that only the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, can regulate issues involving interstate pollution. Even before the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court held that disputes over interstate pollutants were federal matter. In Illinois v. Milwaukee in 1972, Illinois sued Milwaukee, a city in Wisconsin, for allegedly creating a public nuisance by dumping

sewage into Lake Michigan. The court ruled unanimously that federal common law governs these types of interstate claims, dictating that the case be heard in federal district court. But after the Clean Air Act was enacted, the court ruled that the law now superseded its prior decision in 1972, solidifying the precedent that the EPA was responsible for regulating these matters. And that meant that Illinois would need to appeal to the EPA to stop Milwaukee's dumps. This precedent helps Suncor's case. In Shanmugam's words, quote, because of the ambient nature of air and water

and the conflicting rights of states, this court has held for over a century that federal law governs interstate pollution claims, and that principle applies with even greater force to claims involving global climate change, end quote. On the other side, Kevin Russell, the lawyer for Boulder, argued that the lawsuit isn't about regulating interstate pollution, but holding energy companies financially accountable for harms that result from

that pollution, which is also known as tort claims or demands for compensation to address another actor's harmful action. So if you hear tort claims, that's what I'm referring to in the future. Here's what Russell said. Quote, when somebody in New York defames a citizen of Boulder on national television or somebody in California releases a computer virus on the internet or a biological virus into the world, and it causes mass damage in Colorado, it has never been thought that only federal law can provide a remedy. Russell also noted that Congress has not passed any law in the Clean Air Act, a Clean Water Act, or anywhere else,

that says that energy companies can't be sued for damages from fossil fuel emissions. A brief submitted to the court in this case highlights that Congress has acted to insulate some entities, like gun manufacturers, from tort claims for alleged harms associated with their product. and it could do the same for energy companies if it wanted to. But until it does, nothing prevents Boulder from bringing its suit. Of course, the absence of an explicit provision that says states cannot bring civil suits

for fossil fuel-related damages doesn't mean that federal law inherently allows it. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in International Paper Company v. Willett in 1987 that Vermont residents could not sue a New York paper mill for polluting Lake Champlain in violation of Vermont state law, despite the fact that there was no explicit federal provision against such a suit. The court's decision was very direct. Quote, it wrote, it is not necessary for a federal statute to provide explicitly

that particular state laws are preempted, end quote. I was interested to see how the justices probe these competing arguments, and I thought that Chief Justice Roberts got at the heart of the dispute. He asked principal deputy solicitor General Sarah Harris, who argued in support of the energy company, why the state should be barred from pursuing damages when these kinds of civil suits are permitted for a range of other companies and industries like drug manufacturers, car manufacturers, and the like. Harris responded that Colorado's suit was different, that it was an attempt to control energy

company's behavior, but based on my read, Roberts came away from the exchange unconvinced. On the other side, the Chief Justice pressed Russell on the practical implications of the suit, and whether it's merely a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent both the EPA and the Clean Air Act. Quote, if you prevail, the next day, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit. They'll probably copy your pleadings and then at least 50 different cities in one state could do it, he said, later suggesting that the lawsuit is, quote, an effort to reduce emissions. After reading these exchanges and the related arguments, I found Boulder's case more persuasive, particularly the point that the Clean Air Act,

Act does not prevent it from seeking damages for energy company's actions. Yes, federal law and court precedent clearly prevent states from establishing laws that regulate interstate pollution or energy company behavior. But Boulder is cleverly sidestepping that issue. It's not suing to force Suncor and Exxon to conform with its laws directly, but to collect damages for alleged harms. That's a different issue than the one raised in Willett or Illinois versus Milwaukee, which dealt with state laws that sought to regulate polluter behavior. As Roberts noted, Boulder's case is more in line with standard tort claims. I don't think there's a clear precedent or a law on the books that can stop this suit from

proceeding. Would that be a good thing? Well, even as someone who cares about the negative impacts of fossil fuel-driven climate change, I worry about the implications of that outcome. Roberts suggested that a ruling in favor of Boulder would immediately prompt 50 different cities in one state to do the same thing. I think it'd be more like hundreds of cities in tens of states. And of note, dozens of similar cases are already pending across the country and waiting to see what the outcome of this one is. To me, it underscores the prudence of having an agency like the EPA

to establish and enforce uniform rules across the country. Without it, the potential for chaos reigns. And you don't need to sympathize with these energy companies or downplay the role of fossil fuels and climate change to scrutinize the ramifications of ruling in Boulder's favor. Drowning Exxon in a deluge of litigation surely sounds nice to some, but I don't think a battling energy producers by proxy lawsuit is a smart strategy, as there's no guarantee that these suits will actually win on the merits if they're heard. Companies may not alter their behavior either, instead opting to jack up the prices that you and I pay. It's also a very good

clear to me that Boulder's suit is a de facto attempt to regulate energy companies, one that violates the spirit of the CIA and court precedent. If it succeeds, the city would demand payment for a vast array of environmental issues. Its suit lists heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods, and more as hazards that are exacerbated by climate change that fossil fuel producers could be partially liable for. The breadth of that claim is inherently coercive. In response, energy companies would have to move entirely away from fossil fuel production or be sued out of existence. Again, I think you can view these companies as harmful polluters and still see how that new status quo would conflict with the EPA's well-established power to regulate emissions and emitters.

Now, I don't have a strong sense of how the court is going to rule in this case. Other justices, not just Roberts, seemed genuinely uncertain of both sides' arguments. A plausible outcome is a four-four split, with Roberts joining the three Democratic-appointed justices, which would leave the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in place and allow the suit to proceed. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could decide that it's too early for it to weigh in on the case

and allow the suit to proceed on that basis. I'm left in an uneasy position of supporting Boulder's legal arguments for letting the case proceed while worrying about the consequences of it succeeding. Ultimately, a resolution may only come once lower courts have had the opportunity. to decide on the merits, at which point the case may end up right back before the Supreme Court. All right, that is it for my take. We had a dissent from contributing editor Isaac Wood today,

so I'm going to pass it over to him. This is contributing editor Isaac Wood with a staff dissent. I share Will's climate concerns, but disagree with its position on the ideal outcome of this case. I think it would be good for states to be able to sue for damages brought on by climate change. Big oil companies are pumping harmful substances into the atmosphere that bring material damages upon individuals, towns, and states. Right now, states can appeal to the EPA to create and enforce rules on emissions and impose fines, but there isn't a path for them to pursue monetary damages. States and citizens should be able to sue these companies in response to climate-related harms. If a city has to enact infrastructure changes to account for increased wildfires,

like cities in Boulder County do, then that's a clear example of a cost incurred from damages caused by big oil companies. I agree with Will's assessment that precedent seems to side with Boulder. And if the court decides that's true, then I welcome the opportunity for damages to be redressed, even if that overwhelms big oil. Now I'll send it over to to Associate Editor-Pacheco for today's Reader Question. We'll be right back after this quick break. Thanks, I.B. This is Associate Editor, Corina Pacheco,

answering a reader question from Cindy from Ohio, California. At what point will our ever-increasing national debt become a real problem that needs to be addressed? The national debt is a prominent political issue that is usually at the forefront of national policy debates. Politicians on both side of the aisle have expressed concern at the towering scale of the national debt, which hit the 40 trillion mark in August. There's no one specific benchmark that would signify a real drastic financial threat, but many economists and policymakers

theorize that 40 trillion is a major economic concern because of how much of the federal budget goes to interest on the national debt. The United States collected about 5.2,000, $2,3 trillion in tax dollars last year, but spends over $7 trillion each year. The money the government borrows is in the form of bonds, which are sold to pension funds, foreign countries, businesses, and even private citizens. The federal government dedicates nearly two-thirds of its budget to mandatory and safety net-related spending, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Defense spending accounts for roughly 13.

percent of the overall budget and interest payments on the national debt account for about 15 percent. That's roughly $1 trillion a year. Simply having national debt isn't inherently a bad thing because it allows the government to build or provide expensive infrastructure or services quickly. But as for any borrower, taking on debt gets bad when the interest starts to add up. when the debt and concurrent interest are too high, instead of spending over a trillion dollars on schools, parks, highways, or other public benefits, that sum is going straight to paying down interest on the national debt. So while there is no fixed dollar amount that will set off alarm bells, experts are concerned that the interest is growing faster than the United States'

overall economy. As of this year, interest costs are projected to double by 2036. And since spending isn't likely to slow down anytime soon, the conversation about the national debt is likely to remain front and center. All right, that's it for today's reader question. I'm going to hand it back to Will for the rest of the pod. See ya. Thanks, Karina. All right, I will finish things off with today's Have a Nice Day story. Three years ago, two men illegally cut down England's Sycamore Gap tree for unknown reasons. The tree had been a local landmark and something of a pop culture icon, and its felling devastated people in the local community and beyond. However, on September 28th, the Conservation Charity National Trust shared that leafy shoots have begun sprouting around the Sycamore Gap space, calling it, quote, a sure sign that the tree is in recovery.

These signs offer hope that the resilient tree will one day grace the English countryside again. Smithsonian magazine has the story and we'll drop the link to it in today's show notes. All right, that is it for today's edition. Thanks as always for being with us through another packed week of news. We will be back tomorrow with a special Friday edition from executive editor Isaac Saul. Until then, have a great day. Be well. And peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall.

Today's episode was edited and engineer. by Deweird by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.