美国最高法院开庭审理博尔德诉石油巨头气候索赔案US Supreme Court Hears Landmark Boulder Climate Lawsuit Against Energy Giants

美国最高法院在结束夏季休会后，于2026年10月5日开启为期九个月的新审理期。法庭排定的首起口头辩论案件源自博尔德县与博尔德市于2018年提起的诉讼。当地政府指控埃克森美孚及加拿大森科能源的美国子公司早在数十年前便清楚化石燃料会加剧极端天气，却长期误导公众并推卸责任，因此要求两家企业为科罗拉多州近年频发的野火、干旱与基础设施损毁承担治理费用。

The US Supreme Court commenced its new nine-month term on October 5, 2026, following its summer recess, placing a dispute over corporate climate liability at the very top of its docket. The oral arguments stem from a 2018 lawsuit filed by Boulder County and the City of Boulder against ExxonMobil and the US subsidiary of Canadian energy producer Suncor Energy. Local officials contend that the companies knew decades ago that fossil fuels would drive severe environmental harm but deceived the public, seeking monetary damages to help fund local infrastructure repairs and wildfire disaster management across Colorado.

本案目前仍处于科罗拉多州法院诉讼的早期阶段，尚未进入实质性庭审。两家能源企业在科罗拉多州最高法院此前做出有利于博尔德的裁决后，向联邦最高法院提出上诉，试图通过最高司法途径彻底阻断审判程序。最高法院对本案的司法裁定预计将于2027年6月前做出，其结果将直接确立地方政府依据州法起诉能源企业的管辖权边界，并深刻牵动全美各地二十多起同类环境诉讼的走向。

The litigation remains in its preliminary stages and has not yet gone to trial in the Colorado judicial system. Exxon and Suncor appealed to the US Supreme Court last year after Colorado's highest court ruled in favor of Boulder, seeking a federal order to halt the state-level proceedings before a jury trial can take place. With a final ruling expected by June, the justices' determination on state authority and court jurisdiction will set a critical precedent for more than two dozen similar lawsuits currently moving through courts across the country.

在呈交最高法院的诉状中，博尔德方面主张地方政府是在行使保护居民健康与安全的固有州警察权力。该诉讼将自身定性为追究企业虚假宣传行为的产品责任诉讼，并援引1990年代多州联合起诉主要烟草公司的先例，强调本案并非试图解决气候变化问题或对科罗拉多州的排放设定上限，而是要求涉案能源公司为其侵权行为所导致的局部灾害应对支出承担合理份额。

In filings submitted to the Supreme Court, Boulder attorneys argued that the local governments are exercising inherent state police powers to protect the health and safety of their residents. Framing the case around product liability and deceptive trade practices, Boulder compared the action to the multi-state tobacco litigation of the 1990s, clarifying that the lawsuit does not attempt to solve climate change or impose statewide emissions caps, but rather asks energy companies to cover their fair share of local disaster mitigation expenses resulting from tortious conduct.

埃克森美孚与森科能源则提出两项主要法律抗辩，主张温室气体排放具有跨州乃至跨国属性，各州无权在自身边界之外进行事实上的监管。能源公司辩称，根据联邦宪法架构，各州加入联邦时已让渡依据本州法律解决跨界纠纷的权力，且联邦《清洁空气法》对空气污染的规范优先于州级侵权法。企业方面进一步警告，若允许此类依据州法的诉讼进入实质审理，将使能源产业面临数十亿美元的巨额赔偿风险，其性质等同于对企业课征破产级别的碳税。

ExxonMobil and Suncor countered with two foundational federal defenses, maintaining that greenhouse gas emissions constitute an inherently interstate and international matter beyond the regulatory scope of individual state laws. The companies argued that under the constitutional structure, states surrendered their authority to apply local laws to cross-border disputes, and that federal regulation under the Clean Air Act expressly preempts state tort claims. Industry attorneys warned that permitting state-level trials could subject energy producers to billions of dollars in crippling liabilities, effectively functioning as an industry-destabilizing carbon tax.

在最高法院开启口头辩论前夕，保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托宣布回避审理本案。尽管他在上周初次宣布回避时未说明具体原因，但自由派团体数月来持续指出其持有其他可能因判决获益的石油公司股票；阿利托随后对彭博新闻社证实，鉴于个人持有的能源类股票，回避是审慎的做法。阿利托的退出对能源公司构成程序挫折，因为法院曾在今年5月向全国广播公司新闻台表示他无须退出，而西弗吉尼亚州副检察长迈克尔·威廉姆斯亦在简报会上表示该回避对支持油企的一方并非好消息。

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito stepped aside shortly before oral arguments began, leaving the court with eight justices. Liberal advocacy groups had argued for months that Alito should not participate due to his personal holdings in other oil companies that could benefit from a favorable outcome for Exxon and Suncor; Alito later told Bloomberg News that stepping away was prudent given those energy stock investments. The recusal marked a sudden shift after the Supreme Court informed NBC News in May that no recusal was necessary, drawing disappointment from energy company allies such as West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams, whose state backed the industry.

在阿利托缺席后，最高法院由八名大法官组成审理阵营，这显著增加了出现4比4平局的可能。依照联邦司法程序规则，一旦法官投票陷入僵局，最高法院将默认维持科罗拉多州最高法院的原判，使核心管辖权争议在联邦层面悬而未决，同时允许博尔德的诉讼在州法院继续推进。此外，最高法院亦可采取更为克制的处置方案：若大法官最终认定能源公司的上诉过早或尚未达到适于联邦复审的成熟阶段，同样会将该案发回州级法院审理。

Alito's absence creates an evenly divided eight-member bench, elevating the likelihood of a 4-4 deadlock. Under Supreme Court procedural conventions, a tied vote automatically affirms the lower ruling by Colorado's highest court without establishing a binding national precedent, leaving the overarching constitutional questions unresolved while clearing Boulder's lawsuit to advance in state court. Alternatively, the justices could opt for a narrow procedural resolution: if the court concludes that the oil companies' appeal is premature and not yet ripe for high-court intervention before a state trial, it will remand the dispute back to Colorado courts.

博尔德诉讼案背后折射出科罗拉多州近年来遭遇的严峻环境破坏。2021年12月下旬席卷该县的马歇尔大火焚毁了苏必利尔和路易斯维尔等地的社区，当地居民的住宅化为灰烬，硬币和自行车被高达2000华氏度的高温融化。地方官员与倡导组织指出，应对野火灾后重建、防洪工程以及极端高温适应措施耗费了当地大量财政资金与人力，要求化石燃料企业承担治理成本是追究企业知情不报责任的必要方式。

The legal battle in Boulder is grounded in severe environmental destruction across Colorado, highlighted by the catastrophic Marshall Fire in late December 2021. The disaster tore through communities in Superior and Louisville, reducing historic homes to ash and melting metal in 2,000-degree heat. Local officials emphasize that adapting to recurring climate disasters has consumed substantial municipal time and tax dollars, arguing that fossil fuel companies should help fund wildfire recovery, flood defenses, and public safety programs rather than shifting the entire financial burden onto local taxpayers.

本案的判决预期将超越环境纠纷范畴，成为界定州级权力与企业问责标准的重要参照。支持油企的学者托德·齐维茨基等人警告，允许此类诉讼过关相当于让地方县市向全球强加能源政策；气候诚信中心等支持者则认为企业应当承担通报风险与清理损害的普通民事责任。特朗普政府在此案中支持能源公司，主张全球变暖属于全国及国际事务，最高法院的最终裁定将明确各州是否有权追究跨国企业对地方造成的广泛损害。

The Supreme Court's ruling will carry broad ramifications extending well past environmental law, testing whether state powers can hold corporations liable for localized harms. Conservative legal scholars, including Antonin Scalia Law School professor Todd Zywicki, argue that allowing the case to proceed would let local jurisdictions dictate energy policy to the entire world, an argument echoed by the Trump administration in support of the energy companies. Conversely, climate advocacy organizations contend that corporations must be held to standard civil liability rules if they knowingly caused environmental damage without warning the public.