08-13-25 *INTERIVEW* Special Counsel Phil Goldberg on Boulder County Lawsuit Against Oil & Gas

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to go right now to our special guest,
Phil Goldberg. Phil is special counsel for the Manufacturer's Accountability Project,
and what we're going to talk about here for a
few minutes is a lawsuit that on the surface is
about Boulder, but really has major national implications. It's a

(00:22):
lawsuit brought by the kind of people who I frequently
describe to you as claiming they love the planet but
actually just hating people and it. So I don't need
to say more here. Let's go right to our guest, Phil.
Welcome to KOA. It's good to have you here.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Ross, Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
So why don't we just start with telling us what
the lawsuit, not your lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
Your lawsuit is about another lawsuit.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Tell us what that other lawsuit is about first, and
then we'll get to your lawsuit.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
Yeah, well, I appreciate that, Ross, and trust me, i'd
rather be talking football right now as we get ready
for a fun season. But unfortunately we're talking about litigation
and uh, climate change and those kinds of things.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
So there's been an.

Speaker 4 (01:06):
Effort by you know, the individual I guess you've described,
to make climate change a litigation issue. But their litigation
is not about doing anything about climate change, is not
going to be meaningfully solve anything. It's really just a
political ploy to try to raise, uh, you know, raise
the issue.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
But that's not what but that at the end of
the day, if these.

Speaker 4 (01:29):
Lawsuits succeed, it's really going to cost a lot of
US money because it's going to raise the price of
energy because it make it more expensive for the kind
of things that we need to do every day.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
And the manufacturing community is very.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
Concerned about this litigation, not just because of the cost,
but because it tries to target them and make them
responsible for They are really these these social political issues
and that's not what the courts are for.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
UH.

Speaker 4 (01:53):
And so UH, this case has been has been put
before the US Supreme Court UH this week UH and
home for the court will take the case and take
a look at it. But it's something that should be
of concern to everybody that listens to this show and
that uses energy for their homes and their cars and
all that stuff, because if this is successful, it's going
to make a lot more expensive to do that.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
So Boulder is suing sun Core, and I don't know
who else exon and just one last thing on their
lawsuit and then we'll get to the nuts and bolts
of yours.

Speaker 3 (02:25):
What do they want?

Speaker 4 (02:27):
So what they're saying is that they want to be
able to say we want to blame one company or
two companies for climate change and make them pay us
money being bolder and for things that they say are
climate change related harms.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
They you know, years ago.

Speaker 4 (02:43):
This litigation started out as directly trying to use the
courts to make energy policy. That all got thrown out
of the courts because the courts aren't the place to
do that. The Congress and federal agencies and all that
is where you make energy policy.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
So they just rejiggered the litigation. They try to make
it sound different, but really it's all about the same.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
Thing, Okay.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
So to me, it's absolutely crystal clear obvious that this
lawsuit cannot be allowed at state court because these involve
federal and international issues. And it went to the state
Supreme Court and the State Supreme Court said, yeah, it
can go ahead. There was a very strong descent by

(03:23):
Justice Somemore joined by Boat right. So is your lawsuit
essentially arguing that almost regardless of what you think of
the claims by Boulder, and I do think they're frivolous.
But even if you didn't that this cannot be a
case that precedes in state court.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Well, that's exactly right.

Speaker 4 (03:43):
So the what the you know, what the defendants in
the case, the Exxon and some Core saying, is these
are issues dealing with climate change, dealing with energy policy,
how energy is and fuel is do sold market all
that all around the world cannot be decided by any

(04:04):
state's law. That is something that is national, international in scope.
And so and what Bould is trying to do is say, no,
we just want to we want to be able to
get money.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
We want to be able to do this under Colorado
of law. So if we're.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
Telling you what you can or can't do in other
states and other countries, we're allowed to do that. And
that's what that the Colorado Supreme Court said, is that
they're allowed to proceed under state law. Let state law
govern the international production, sale, and marketing of fuel. And
that's just not what the law could be because every
state would do it differently, and every state would try

(04:35):
to do it in a very selfish way. And that's
why when you have these kind of international these interstate issues,
it's always been something of at the federal level has
to decide because they can decide it one way, they
can decide it for the whole country.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
Then they're not hitting every state against each other.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
I thought that there was precedent kind of along these
lines already saying you know, this kind of thing is
clearly federal and can't be in a state court. But
if the state supreme court said you can go ahead,
maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
I mean, is there a precedent? Do you think there's
president that.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
Yeah, you're not, You're not wrong.

Speaker 4 (05:10):
On about fourteen years ago, the US Supreme Court had
a very similar case where they said, you know, it
would be inappropriate to use any state law to decide
these kinds of issues, that they are a special federal interest.
But that case was brought under federal law, it was
not brought under state laws.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
So to try to get around that, they you know,
that's why these.

Speaker 4 (05:32):
Cases have been repackaged and reframed in ways to try
to make it sound like it's just a normal, you know,
run of the mill to lawsuit, but it's really not. Unfortunately,
the Colorado Supreme Court said they were allowed to go
forward with it. But at the end of the day,
I think the US Supreme Court is going to have
to step in because they're about three dozen of these
floating around the country about you know, A bunch of

(05:54):
the states have said no to them already, a lot
of courts I said no to them. A couple of
courtses said okay, so you're really ending up with this
pock marked landscape of decisions that just can't survive. At
the end of the day, it has to be we
have to have a uniform response to this kind of litigation.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
Okay, So last question for you.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
So the status right now is that the defendants in
the case with amicust brief from you guys and some
others are trying to get the Supreme Court to agree
to hear the case.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
Is that where we are trying to get.

Speaker 2 (06:29):
Yeah, that's exactly right.

Speaker 4 (06:30):
I said, there's about three dozen these cases around the country.
We need a uniform answer, and then we want the
Supreme Court to step in now so that we can
avoid all these years of litigation, which is very expensive
and time consuming, and just get to the right answer.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
Now. What the others are saying.

Speaker 4 (06:46):
Is no, the Supreme Court can hold off on this,
decide it later because they want to use the litigation
as a political cudgel, and that's not really what litigation
is for.

Speaker 2 (06:55):
Litigation is really meant to solve rights.

Speaker 4 (06:56):
And wrongs and that kind of thing, and that's not
what this case is about.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
Phil Goldberg, a special counsel for the Manufacturer's Accountability Project.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
Thanks for your time, Phil.

Speaker 1 (07:06):
We'll keep up with you on this very very important
case that happens to be local to us.

Speaker 4 (07:11):
I appreciate that and enjoy the rest of the day
at the Broncos practice facility.

Speaker 3 (07:16):
Very good. Thank you, Phil.