The Supreme Court begins its new term by evaluating a significant case regarding whether the oil and gas industry could be liable for damages caused by climate change, such as heat waves, wildfires, and droughts. This question, debated for years, involves California and over two dozen other parties accusing major oil companies of misleading the public about climate change risks. California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, stated that these companies have long known the truth while prioritizing profits at the environment’s expense.

Lawsuits related to climate change are similar to those against the tobacco and opioid industries, where companies allegedly hid the dangers of profitable products. Yet, the climate-related lawsuits face obstacles. Courts differ on whether these claims should be addressed at federal or state levels and under which laws. For instance, Boulder County, Colorado, succeeded in moving forward with its case as a public nuisance claim, not blocked by federal laws. Some oppose state courts deciding on matters with national impact, as argued by the oil companies and supported by the Trump administration. The Supreme Court now examines if federal laws prevent state law claims related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Legal experts such as UCLA’s Alejandro Camacho believe federal law should not shield polluters from responsibility. Critics argue the claims are too broad, encompassing legal product sales and emissions impacts from countries like China and India. The outcome is uncertain, particularly with Justice Samuel Alito withdrawing due to his financial interests in oil. A decision for Boulder could allow climate-related cases in state courts, while a ruling for the industry might halt such cases nationwide. Justice Alito’s absence may lead to a tied vote, allowing Boulder’s case to proceed without setting a broader precedent.

This term, the Supreme Court also addresses key immigration and gun rights cases. Controversial issues include Trump’s policies on deportations without bond hearings and the use of third-country deportations. The court is set to hear arguments on these matters, with implications for mandatory detention policies and protection assurances for deportees. Additionally, a potential landmark decision on gun rights will evaluate if states can ban semiautomatic rifles amid ongoing debates on 2nd Amendment rights.