2026年10月5日 美国东部时间凌晨5:00 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里策
7月20日拍摄的华盛顿特区美国最高法院大楼。
格雷姆·斯隆/彭博社/盖蒂图片社
美国最高法院将于周一听取多年来提交至其议事日程的最重要气候变化案件之一的口头辩论。这起涉案金额达数十亿美元的案件旨在要求埃克森美孚等大型石油公司为造成全球变暖的污染所引发的损失承担责任。
科罗拉多州博尔德市及所在县于2018年起诉了两家能源公司，试图追回火灾和洪水发生后修复基础设施及提供公共卫生服务的成本。博尔德方面辩称，这些企业不仅加剧了气候变化，还就化石燃料在气候变化中所起的作用误导公众。
数十个城市和州已针对石油公司提起类似诉讼，石油公司警告称，此类诉讼相当于征收碳税，最终可能导致能源行业破产。
这是将于周一开启的新开庭期内首起被受理的案件，该开庭期还将涉及AR-15式步枪禁令、宗教学校和选举等争议议题。最高法院预计将于明年6月作出裁决。
相关报道：克拉伦斯·托马斯因最高法院多年来最重大的气候案件陷入舆论漩涡 阅读时长6分钟
博尔德方面声称，其行使的是固有的州警察权力，以保护居民的健康与安全，这种做法并非前所未有。上世纪90年代，数十个州起诉了最大的几家烟草公司，要求其赔偿损失并指控它们存在欺诈行为——这场诉讼最终促成了巨额和解协议。
“这场诉讼并非旨在解决气候变化问题，”博尔德向最高法院表示，“它仅要求请愿方为其侵权行为所造成的部分当地成本承担其应承担的份额。”
埃克森美孚以及加拿大企业的美国子公司森科能源表示，长期以来人们已形成共识，温室气体排放本质上是跨州问题，相关原则实际上优先于州侵权法。
“正如本院一贯认定的那样，诉诸单一州的法律来解决本质上属于跨州的争议，违背了宪法的基本框架，”这些能源公司在声明中称。
出现了一个不同寻常的变数：保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托上周宣布将回避审理此案。尽管他当时未说明理由，但他后来告诉彭博新闻社，鉴于他持有能源类股票，退出此案是“审慎之举”。这一决定可能导致出现4票对4票的平局，届时将默认允许诉讼继续进行。
相关报道：最高法院开启新开庭期，同时关注特朗普总统动向 阅读时长8分钟
在科罗拉多州最高法院支持博尔德一方后，埃克森美孚和森科能源于去年向美国最高法院提起上诉。如果美国最高法院也支持博尔德，此案并不会就此终结；这只会允许诉讼在州法院继续推进。
如果最高法院无法就上诉提出的重大问题给出定论，它可能会以更有限的方式处理此案。目前尚不清楚该上诉是否已达到适合最高法院审查的阶段。如果最高法院认为时机尚不成熟，案件将被退回州法院——至少目前是这样。
An 8-justice Supreme Court to decide whether cities can sue oil companies for climate change impacts
2026-10-05 05:00 AM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on July 20.
Graeme Sloan//Bloomberg/Getty Images
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in one of the most important climate change cases to reach its docket in years, a multibillion-dollar effort to hold major oil companies like ExxonMobil liable for the damages caused by planet-warming pollution.
The city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued two energy companies in 2018, attempting to recover the cost of repairing infrastructure and providing access to public health services following fires and floods. Boulder argues the companies not only contributed to climate change but also misled the public about the role fossil fuels played in climate change.
Dozens of cities and states have filed similar lawsuits against oil companies, which warn the litigation amounts to a carbon tax that could ultimately bankrupt the energy industry.
It is the first case the court is hearing in a new term that begins Monday that features disputes over the AR-15 bans, religious schools and voting. A decision is expected by June.
Related article: Clarence Thomas is in the hot seat for Supreme Court’s biggest climate case in years 6 min read
Boulder claims that it is exercising inherent state police powers to protect the health and safety of its residents, and that the practice is not novel. Dozens of states sued the largest tobacco companies in the 1990s seeking damages and alleging deceptive practices — litigation that led to a massive settlement.
“This litigation is not an attempt to solve climate change,” Boulder told the court. “It merely asks that petitioners bear their fair share of local costs incurred in part because of their tortious conduct.”
Exxon and Suncor Energy, the US subsidiary of a Canadian-based company, say it has long been understood that greenhouse gas emissions are inherently an interstate challenge and that those principles effectively preempt state tort laws.
“As this court has consistently recognized, resorting to a single state’s law to resolve an inherently interstate dispute contradicts the basic scheme of the Constitution,” the energy companies said.
In an unusual twist, conservative Justice Samuel Alito announced last week that he would recuse himself from the case. Though he did not state a reason at the time, he later told Bloomberg News that he felt it was “prudent” to step away given his holdings in energy stocks. The decision opens the possibility of a 4-4 split that would, by default, allow the litigation to continue.
Related article: Supreme Court heads into new term with one eye on President Trump 8 min read
Exxon and Suncor filed the appeal at the Supreme Court last year after Colorado’s highest court sided with Boulder. If the US Supreme Court also backed Boulder, it wouldn’t be the end of the case; it would only permit the litigation to continue in state court.
If the court can’t find an answer to the big questions raised by the appeal, it could deal with the case in a more limited way. It’s not clear whether the appeal is ripe for Supreme Court review. If the court concludes that it’s too soon, that will send the case back to state courts — at least for now.
发表回复