You likely saw the news that on January 3, 2026, the United States executed a covert military operation in Caracas, Venezuela wherein U.S. forces abducted that country’s head of state, Nicolas Maduro, along with his spouse, and then transported them to New York City to face charges for alleged drug trafficking and gun possession. In press briefings after the operation, President Trump announced that the United States was going to “keep the oil,” in reference to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, which are reportedly the largest on Earth and contain approximately 5% of the world’s recoverable oil. While this operation and its aftermath provide lots of grist for political and legal debate that you’ve heard, read, and considered, they may also impact state sovereignty in respects that appear subtle but could be highly consequential: climate accountability litigation that’s ongoing in the United States.
As I wrote in my column that appeared in June 2025, there are about three dozen states, municipalities, and indigenous tribes that have sued fossil fuel producers for climate harms the claimants have alleged to have been caused by carbon pollution and/or corporate deception. I am co-lead counsel in one such case in Multnomah County, Oregon. The defendants in these cases vigorously oppose the claims on several grounds, but chief among them is their contention that federal preemption should preclude the claims from being adjudicated on the merits.
In sum, the defendants assert that all such cases, even where brought under state law, seek by intention and effect, to unauthorizedly punish and regulate greenhouse gas emissions that defendants contend are solely governed under federal statutory and agency frameworks, such as the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.
As I write this, the United States Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to take on the issue of federal preemption in a climate accountability case, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al., Petitioners v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al. In that case, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff City of Boulder that its claims were not preempted by federal law. Defendants in that case petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of that decision.
If SCOTUS grants the petition for review in the City of Boulder case, one of the issues the petitioners will have to grapple with in arguing for federal preemption is how federally deregulated the fossil fuel industry has become under each of the two Trump administrations. The Trump Administration’s operation to seize Venezuelan oil is undoubtedly part of its broader agenda to make America the most oil prosperous nation in the world. Work by both Trump Administrations and decisions by SCOTUS in recent years have repealed federal emissions regulations and federal regulatory authority over the fossil fuel industry.
The fossil fuel industry is less regulated and less obligated to control their greenhouse gas emissions than they have been in decades, so much so that British Petroleum, one of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers, reversed course on its longstanding pledge to convert its operations to renewable energy production and carbon neutral activities. If SCOTUS were to grant review of the City of Boulder case and then rule for petitioners on federal preemption, the net effect would be that no governmental authority, including states and municipalities within their own borders, could effectively regulate against greenhouse gas pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
