The Supreme Court is preparing to hear Suncor v. Boulder, a highly anticipated climate lawsuit that could influence Americans’ First Amendment rights.
In a piece for the Washington Examiner, Gene Schaerr wrote that the case could decide whether state and local governments could punish disfavored speakers for what they said about fossil fuels, climate policy, and “their own place in the national economy.” If this were to happen, it could set a precedent to start regulating speech.
As we told the Supreme Court in our amicus brief, the issue is not that everything energy companies ever said in defense of fossil fuels was correct. Our point is that Boulder is trying to compel everyone to agree to only one side of a public debate. The speech at issue includes public statements, ads, and other forms of protected speech, including petitioning activity directed at legislators, regulators, and the public on one of the most intensely contested issues in modern American life.
At the heart of the case are allegations by Boulder and other Colorado localities that major energy companies helped cause climate change and misled the public about the climate effects of fossil fuels. They seek huge damages on that basis. They target particular speakers, a particular subject, and a particular viewpoint in a live public controversy.
That should trouble anyone who cares about open debate, including people who angrily disagree with the energy-company defendants.
[…]
If courts allow lawsuits to become weapons against those who challenge prevailing assumptions on contested scientific and policy questions, many people with far fewer resources than an oil company will simply shut up. Businesses will say less. Scientists will be more cautious. Advocacy groups will think twice before engaging in controversial debates. The result will not be a sharper search for the truth. It will be quieter, narrower, and more fearful public discourse, with trial lawyers acting as national moderators.
Read the full story in the Washington Examiner.
