AI-rewritten: This is a summary of an article from Ars Technica, rewritten by AI (Qwen, running locally) to make it easier to read. The facts come from the original article – read it for the full story.

---

The US Supreme Court heard arguments from oil companies regarding over two dozen lawsuits accusing the industry of deceiving the public about climate change. These cases seek billions in damages to cover costs from extreme weather, but the court focused on technical legal questions rather than the merits of the claims. The specific case involves Boulder, Colorado, suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy for deception. Kannon Shanmugam, arguing for the oil companies, stated that allowing these lawsuits would let 90,000 municipalities set national energy policy by imposing catastrophic damages on fossil fuel producers.

Boulder’s side, led by Kevin Russell, argued their case is about deception, not limiting emissions. They contend federal law does not bar states from seeking damages for secondary effects like pollution reduction. While conservative groups and the Trump administration supported the oil companies’ view that federal law preempts these state claims, supporters of Boulder rallied outside the court. City manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde noted that taxpayers are currently bearing costs alone and asked if defendants should pay their fair share for harms caused.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the hearing due to stock ownership in oil companies involved in related lawsuits. His absence leaves open the possibility of a tie vote, which would allow the case to proceed. The decision, expected by June, could halt many similar paused cases or set the stage for trials. Several conservative justices seemed inclined to agree that federal law preempts some claims, while others suggested it might be too early to intervene on the jurisdictional question posed by Justice Clarence Thomas.