The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the first case on the Court's October argument calendar. Boulder County and the city of Boulder sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in state court in 2018. They say the companies misled the public about climate change and should help pay what the community spends to protect itself from its effects. The companies want the justices to rule that federal law bars those state-law claims.
Whether a local jury may weigh damages over a global problem, or whether that choice belongs only to Washington, now rests with eight justices.
Colorado's Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that federal law did not preempt Boulder's claims, the city said in a release. Dozens of similar suits by states and cities are pending, CBS News reported. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the companies. Justice Samuel Alito said Sept. 28 that he would not take part, citing his oil and gas stock holdings, SCOTUSblog reported. A 4-4 tie would leave the Colorado ruling in place. The term's later calendar includes guns, religious preschools, proof-of-citizenship voting rules and third-country deportations.
- The justices agreed in February 2026 to hear the case.
- Kevin Russell will argue for Boulder, the city said.
- Twenty-eight friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Boulder were filed in August.
Eight justices will decide the case. Suncor and ExxonMobil are the petitioners; Boulder's county commissioners and city are the respondents. The Justice Department sides with the companies. Residents who pay for flood and fire defenses, the governments behind the other pending suits, energy shareholders, and every household that buys fuel will feel the answer.
Disputedwhether federal law displaces state-law suits that seek damages from energy companies over climate change.
The FramingsEnergy-company framing (Exxon and Suncor) presents the suit as a door to "countless, conflicting climate policies for the Nation," state by state, and an "enormous 'carbon tax'" set by litigation. Federal-government framing (the Justice Department's brief) calls the claims a "butterfly-effect theory of state authority" that federalism does not permit. State-official framing on the companies' side (West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams): "It's a national problem, so it requires a national solution." Boulder's framing presents ordinary state tort law: "Does anything implicit in the Constitution bar this suit? Nothing does." Its supporters compare the claims to tobacco and opioid suits. Access-to-court framing (William & Mary law professor Jonathan Adler) says the question is narrow: "It's a judgment about whether folks get to make their case."
The RecordThe Colorado ruling and the argument date are in the city's release and the Court's calendar. The administration's position and Alito's recusal were reported by CBS News and SCOTUSblog. Confidence that the case is argued Monday: certain. Confidence in the outcome: low.
What to watch: The argument transcript, which the Court posts the same day. Whether the justices split 4-4, leaving the Colorado ruling standing. A decision is expected by summer 2027.
Sources: CBS News, SCOTUSblog, The Center Square, City of Boulder (release), Supreme Court of the United States (argument calendar)