2026-10-05 16:45:19 / 福克斯新闻频道
八名大法官进行了近两小时的辩论，大法官阿利托因持有石油公司股票回避庭审
撰稿：香农·布里姆、比尔·米尔斯 福克斯新闻
2026年10月5日美国东部时间下午4:45发布
福克斯新闻记者戴维·斯彭特报道了即将审理的涉及气候变化、枪支权利、宗教、选举等议题的最新案件进展。曾为大法官托马斯担任法律助理的约翰·尤也在《美国新闻室》节目中就待审案件发表了看法。
全新功能：您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/ca762a39-e717-4231-bdfc-624b3b28ea6d
收听本文
5分钟
美国最高法院周一开启新的开庭期，当天就联邦法律还是州法律、州法院应如何处理针对能源公司的气候变化损害民事索赔案进行了一场重磅口头辩论。
八名大法官就环境责任这一关键核心问题辩论了近两小时，核心是谁有权裁决、在哪裁决。公开庭审结束后，仍不清楚最高法院将如何裁决。
缺席庭审的是塞缪尔·阿利托大法官，他上周因持有石油公司股票被呼吁回避，不过本周上诉案涉及的两家石油公司并非他持有股票的那两家。
地方和州政府总计寻求数十亿美元的民事赔偿，称这笔资金可用于帮助重建因化石燃料污染加剧的野火、海平面上升和强风暴后的灾区。
最高法院可恢复理性，阻止左派的激进气候议程
最高法院开启意义重大的新开庭期，大法官们将面临重大宪法争议，以及公众对最高法院机构的持续审查。塞缪尔·阿利托大法官因被审查其石油公司股票持有情况而回避庭审。（杰·詹纳/《奥斯汀美国人报》通过盖蒂图片社拍摄）
科罗拉多州最高法院允许博尔德县提起的诉讼继续推进。
最高法院在路易斯安那州环境诉讼中支持雪佛龙与石油公司
由特朗普政府支持的石油公司辩称，碳排放是全国性问题，应在联邦法院审理，类似诉讼此前已被联邦法院驳回。
华盛顿特区环境保护署总部大楼（盖蒂图片社）
大法官们还将裁定他们是否有权审理这一争议，或是该纠纷应归属州法院审理。
阿利托临时决定回避，引发最高法院气候议题对决
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨可能是决定性一票。他对双方都提出了尖锐问题，由于阿利托未参与庭审，他的投票可能导致4:4的平局。
这将意味着具体诉讼将在州法院继续推进。罗伯茨指出，最高法院过去曾允许类似诉求在联邦法院以外的法院审理。
被忽视的“左翼”诉讼浪潮可能让美国人付出意外代价
“有很多类似情形，州外行为对其他州产生广泛影响，但我们仍允许特定州的州法院提起诉讼，”罗伯茨说，“我不太清楚本案与那些我们允许在州法院推进的诉讼有何不同。”
大法官埃琳娜·卡根将气候变化诉讼与此前各州代表公民针对烟草和阿片类药物公司提起的索赔相比较。
美国最高法院就州和地方政府能否在州法院起诉能源公司造成气候相关损害，还是此类纠纷应归属联邦法院审理这一问题进行了重大气候案件听证。（肖恩·瑟/ pooled photo/法新社通过盖蒂图片社拍摄）
最高法院回归。这五起案件可能重塑美国人生活
“这是针对同一类主体、因同一类损害提起的同类诉讼，”卡根说，“各州不能管控空气和水域空间的原则从何而来？”
但大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺似乎代表了许多保守派同僚的观点，谈及多辖区诉讼可能持续数十年的影响。
“如果这类诉讼足够多，将会——会让这些被告乃至其他所有被告破产。任何人都可能成为这类诉讼的潜在被告，任何制造商、任何企业，”卡瓦诺指出。
“我们不必重新制定规则，因为我们已经多次阐明过这一点，”他补充道，“国会在制定《清洁空气法》及其修正案时，想必是依赖本院的先例，即除非国会另有规定，此类污染属于联邦法律管辖范畴。”
当前的诉讼是全美各地州和市政当局提起的数十起诉讼中的一起。
位于丹佛西北部的博尔德县于2018年提起诉讼。
被告之一是加拿大能源巨头森科能源公司，该公司运营着科罗拉多州唯一的大型炼油厂。美国最大石油公司埃克森美孚也是被告。
地方官员声称，能源公司就其在气候变化中的作用误导公众，并表示有必要处以经济罚款，以减轻社区持续遭受的损害，包括近期的森林火灾和日益严重的空气污染。
一些州还指责现任政府放宽了《清洁空气法》规定的保护措施，从而放弃了其监管权限。
众议院共和党人认为，博尔德县对埃克森美孚和森科能源公司的诉讼相当于一场“针对美国能源产业的战争”。（贾斯汀·哈梅尔/彭博社）
但石油公司和特朗普时期的司法部辩称，气候变化应由联邦政府在联邦法院处理，《清洁空气法》限制了各州和县的权限。
关注我们的X账号
他们称这个全球性问题不限于任何一个能源行业或国家，无法通过他们所说的地方“权力攫取”来解决。
一些诉讼律师认为，石油公司在联邦法院可能会有更好的结果，因为他们不必在多个辖区应对数十起 ongoing 诉讼。
“州际空气污染本质上属于联邦管辖领域，”司法部律师莎拉·哈里斯告诉法庭，“这起诉讼严重超出了州权限的宪法界限，”哈里斯对大法官们说。
点击查看更多美国国内新闻
由于法院可能出现平局，八名大法官可能无需就联邦制问题的实质内容作出裁决。
获取突发新闻警报
最高法院明确要求双方在口头辩论中至少在当前阶段讨论最高法院是否应当审理此案。这一程序性“退出通道”可能将更大的争议推迟到日后解决。
“我知道你们还提出了其他几个联邦问题，目前仍在州法院审理中，”大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊询问石油公司律师坎农·尚穆加姆，“我们为何不等州法院完成其联邦层面的审理后再审理所有这些诉求？”
本案为森科能源公司诉科罗拉多州博尔德县专员案（案号25-170）。
点击下载福克斯新闻APP
预计明年春季前将作出判决。
香农·布里姆目前担任《福克斯新闻周日》节目主持人。她于2007年加入该电视台，成为驻华盛顿特区记者，负责报道最高法院相关新闻。
Supreme Court begins new term with high-profile look at clean air and federal authority
2026-10-05 16:45:19 / Fox News
Eight justices debated for nearly two hours with Justice Alito recused over oil company stock ownership
By Shannon Bream , Bill Mears Fox News
Published October 5, 2026 4:45pm EDT
Fox News’ David Spunt reports the latest on the upcoming cases involving climate change, gun rights, religion, voting and more. John Yoo, who served Justice Thomas as a law clerk, also weighs in on the docket during ‘America’s Newsroom.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/ca762a39-e717-4231-bdfc-624b3b28ea6d
Listen to this article
5 min
The Supreme Court launched its new term Monday with a blockbuster oral argument over whether federal or state laws and courts should handle civil lawsuits against energy companies for alleged climate change harms.
Eight justices debated for nearly two hours on a key gateway over environmental liability — who decides and where. It was unclear after the public session how the court might rule.
Absent was Justice Samuel Alito, who recused last week after calls to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies, but not the two at the center of Monday’s appeal.
Local and state governments seek civil damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it is necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels, and severe storms worsened by fossil fuel pollution.
SUPREME COURT CAN RESTORE SANITY AND STOP THE LEFT’S RADICAL CLIMATE AGENDA
The Supreme Court begins a consequential new term as the justices confront major constitutional disputes and continued scrutiny of the institution. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself amid scrutiny over his oil company stock holdings.(Jay Janner/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)
Colorado’s highest court let the case brought by Boulder County proceed.
SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH CHEVRON, OIL COMPANIES IN LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS
The companies — backed by the Trump administration — counter emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out.
Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building in Washington, D.C.(Getty)
The justices will also decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear this dispute, or whether it belongs in state courts.
SUPREME COURT CLIMATE SHOWDOWN JOLTED BY ALITO’S LAST-MINUTE DECISION
Chief Justice John Roberts could be the deciding vote. He asked tough questions of both sides and his vote could produce a 4-4 tie with Alito not participating.
That would mean the specific lawsuit moves ahead in state courts. He said the court in the past has allowed similar claims to be decided outside the federal venue.
WAVE OF OVERLOOKED ‘LEFT-WING’ LAWSUITS COULD COME WITH AN UNEXPECTED PRICE TAG FOR AMERICANS
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states, and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation,” said Roberts. “I guess I’m not quite sure what makes this situation different from all those other ones, where we’ve allowed them to proceed in state court.”
Justice Elena Kagan compared the climate change lawsuits to previous claims against tobacco and opioid companies brought by states on behalf of their citizens.
The Supreme Court heard a major climate case over whether state and local governments can pursue lawsuits against energy companies in state court for alleged climate-related harms or whether such disputes belong in federal court.(Shawn Thew/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
THE SUPREME COURT IS BACK. THESE FIVE CASES COULD RESHAPE AMERICAN LIFE
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” said Kagan. “Where does this principle come from, that states can’t regulate in the air and water space?”
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to speak for many of his conservative colleagues, on the implications for multi-jurisdictional lawsuits to play out, potentially for decades.
” It is going to bankrupt – if there are enough of these [lawsuits] — bankrupt these various defendants and certainly other defendants out there. Anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this. Any manufacturer, any business,” suggested Kavanaugh.
“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel because we’ve said this multiple times,” he added, “and Congress, presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and doing the Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this Court’s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise.”
The current litigation is part of dozens of lawsuits brought by states and municipalities across the country.
Boulder County, located north-west of Denver, sued in 2018.
Among the defendants is Suncor, a Canadian-based energy giant that operates the only major oil refinery in Colorado. ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the U.S., is also a defendant.
Local officials claim the energy firms have misled the public about their role in climate change, and say financial penalties are necessary to mitigate ongoing harms in their communities, including recent forest fires and worsening air pollution.
Some states also accuse the current administration of rolling back mandated protections in the Clean Air Act and thereby abdicating their regulatory authority.
House Republicans argue that Boulder County’s lawsuit against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy amounts to a “war on American energy.”(Justin Hamel/Bloomberg)
But the companies and the Trump Justice Department argue climate change should be addressed by the national government in federal court, and that the Clean Air Act limits what individual states and counties can do.
FOLLOW US ON X
They say this global problem is not limited to any one energy sector or country, and cannot be resolved by what they call local “power grabs.”
Some litigators believe the companies could fare better in federal court since they would not have to juggle dozens of ongoing lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions.
“Interstate air pollution is an inherently federal area,” Sarah Harris, a Justice Department lawyer, told the court. “This suit egregiously exceeds constitutional limits on state authority,” Harris told the justices.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE U.S. NEWS
With the possibility of an evenly divided court, the eight justices may not have to reach the merits of the federalism question.
GET BREAKING NEWS ALERTS
The Supreme Court specifically asked both parties to address at argument whether it should even hear the case, at least at this stage. That procedural “exit ramp” could put the larger issues off for another day.
“I understand that you have several other federal issues that you have raised that are still pending in the state court,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked the oil companies lawyer Kannon Shanmugam. “So why shouldn’t we wait and hear all of these claims once the state courts are done with their federal considerations?”
The case is Suncor Energy Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County, CO (25-170).
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A decision is expected by next spring.
Shannon Bream currently serves as anchor of FOX News Sunday. She joined the network in 2007 as a Washington, D.C- based correspondent covering the Supreme Court.
发表回复