Supreme Court Weighs Climate Case Critics Call a ‘Backdoor Carbon Tax’

A high-stakes climate lawsuit from Colorado could soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court — and critics say it’s an attempt to impose a 🌍Carbon tax through the courts rather than Congress.

According to Fox News, 👤O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, said the case represents “woke lawfare” and a push by progressive activists to reshape the energy industry without public approval.

“Woke lawfare is finally being exposed for what it really is: a radical attempt to impose Progressive Lifestyle Choices on the American people via the courtroom,” Skinner said. “Whether it’s dark money left-wing nonprofits lying about their efforts to indoctrinate judges or climate lawyers telling the truth about their desire to take over the energy industry and impose a 🌍Carbon tax via judicial edict, the result is an economy the American people don’t want — increased costs and reduced choices.”

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado, which accuses Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil of downplaying the dangers of burning fossil fuels and seeks damages under state law. The energy giants have argued the matter belongs in federal court because it involves cross-border emissions. The Supreme Court is now weighing whether to hear the case after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed it to proceed at the state level.

David Bookbinder, a climate attorney who previously served as counsel for Boulder, described the litigation as an indirect form of a 🌍Carbon tax during a Federalist Society forum in October.

“Essentially, the tort liability is an indirect 🌍Carbon tax,” Bookbinder said. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable, the oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense it is the most efficient way — the people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

He added that while he would “prefer an actual 🌍Carbon tax,” Congress is unlikely to take action on climate legislation anytime soon.

Bookbinder later clarified to Fox News Digital that his comments were made “in a personal capacity” and were “meant to describe the way the oil and gas industry operates, not to endorse the way it operates.” He said critics from the oil and gas sector were engaging in “fake outrage” similar to tactics once used by the tobacco lobby.

“Big Oil CEOs, along with their business partners in the states, know that their product is harmful to the public and to the health of the American people,” he said. “Those Big Oil CEOs and their agents in the states should pay the price for that, not the average American consumer at the pump.”

Meanwhile, dozens of Republican lawmakers have warned that the lawsuit could have devastating economic and national security consequences. An October amicus brief argued the case could “bankrupt” the American oil industry and destabilize the broader economy.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take up the case could determine how far climate litigation will go — and whether courts, rather than Congress, end up setting national energy policy.