The Ethics Code of the Supreme Court Is Ridiculous. Big Oil is Well Aware.

While I dont have direct access to internal communications from major oil corporations, their actions suggest a frantic effort to avoid mounting lawsuits over decades of misleading the public about climate change. These lawsuits, brought by cities, counties, states, and Native American tribes, threaten to hold the industry accountable for environmental damage.

To block these cases, oil companies are using every tool available. They are lobbying Congress to grant broad immunity for climate-related damages, enlisting the Trump administration to pressure states pursuing legal action, and repeatedly petitioning the Supreme Court to dismiss the cases. Since 2021, they have tried five times to have the Supreme Court intervene, but all petitions have been denied.

Currently, the industry is seeking Supreme Court review in the case filed by the City and County of Boulder against ExxonMobil and Suncor. After years of delays, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed to discovery and trial. The latest petition is largely identical to previous failed attempts, legally tenuous, and based on the claim that state climate laws are preempted by the "structure of our constitutional system"a vague argument no appellate court has endorsed.

The oil companies are pushing for intervention before a final judgment because allowing discovery could force the release of internal documents exposing deceptive practices. They hope the Supreme Court will act on their petition despite ethical considerations, betting that its allies may overlook conflicts of interest.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett faces a clear conflict due to her fathers decades-long role as a top attorney at Shell, where he contributed to climate projections that informed Big Oils deceptive strategies. While not directly named in Boulders case, Shell is implicated in other climate lawsuits that could be affected by the Courts rulings. Barretts past recusal on related matters in lower courts highlights the ethical stakes, yet she participates in Supreme Court deliberations without binding constraints.

Justice Samuel Alito also has conflicts, owning substantial stock in companies like ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. He has sometimes recused himself, including from previous Boulder petitions, but has been inconsistent, joining dissents in other climate cases. Given that Supreme Court rulings in one case influence others, any involvement despite a conflict raises serious ethical concerns.

The broader issue is accountability. Big Oil is attempting to evade responsibility for actions that jeopardize global health, the economy, and societal stability. These cases question whether powerful corporations can inflict harm without consequence. The industrys objective is clear: to secure a Supreme Court ruling that would end climate accountability lawsuits indefinitely.

Public scrutiny remains the key counterbalance. The courts may not have binding ethical codes, but transparency and civic pressure can influence decision-making. Communities pursuing climate accountability must persist, resisting attempts by Big Oil to sidestep responsibility for environmental destruction and social harm.

Analysis: Big Oil's Legal Battle Against Climate Accountability

The oil industry’s continuous efforts to avoid accountability for its role in climate change have become increasingly apparent. From lobbying to legal tactics, the industry is pulling out all the stops to block lawsuits that could hold them responsible for decades of environmental harm. Despite these efforts, cities, counties, states, and Native American tribes are pressing forward with cases that seek justice for the damage caused by climate deception.

One of the most significant legal challenges comes from the City and County of Boulder, which filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor. After a lengthy battle, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the case should proceed to trial. However, the oil companies are once again attempting to delay the legal process by petitioning the Supreme Court, hoping that their allies within the judicial system will intervene to block the case.

In their petition, the oil companies argue that state-level climate laws are preempted by the "structure of our constitutional system." This argument is weak and has been rejected by other courts, but it allows the oil giants to avoid discovery, which could reveal internal documents exposing their role in misleading the public about climate change.

The involvement of Supreme Court justices, such as Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito, further complicates the ethical landscape. Both have clear conflicts of interest—Barrett due to her father’s ties to Shell, and Alito due to his stock holdings in oil companies. While some may recuse themselves from cases involving conflicts, the inconsistencies in their decisions raise concerns about impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process.

At the heart of this issue is accountability. The oil industry’s actions threaten not only the environment but also the global economy and social stability. The question remains: can corporations that have caused widespread harm escape responsibility? Big Oil’s goal is clear—secure a Supreme Court ruling that will shield them from climate-related lawsuits permanently.

Public scrutiny is essential. While the courts may not always have enforceable ethical codes, transparency and civic pressure play a critical role in ensuring that justice prevails. It is vital that communities continue their fight for climate accountability, pushing back against efforts by the oil industry to avoid facing the consequences of their actions.

Sources:

• The Supreme Court’s Ethics Code Is a Joke. Big Oil Knows That.