2026-10-05 · contested story
Supreme Court's new term kicks off with blockbuster climate change case
On October 5, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2026-27 term with Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case testing whether the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, can sue oil companies (Suncor and ExxonMobil) in state court for damages tied to climate change, or whether federal law preempts such claims. The case landed on the court's first day with the added wrinkle of Justice Samuel Alito's last-minute recusal (he owns energy stocks), raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would uphold the Colorado Supreme Court without setting precedent. Dozens of similar suits by states and localities nationwide hang on the outcome, with billions of dollars potentially at stake.
How each side frames it
left
"One sign that the companies face an uphill battle is the sheer terror emanating from their briefs, where they urge the justices to save them on what amount to policy-driven grounds, not legal ones."
"The oil companies' overarching argument is fairly audacious."
"Recent research has shown, however, that companies like Exxon were not only aware that their products would contribute to climate change but even accurately modeled how much damage their businesses would inflict."
"What the companies were telling the public for years, he says, is 'the opposite of what the company's own scientists knew, and the local cost of that deception.'"
"It pits a Colorado town that has faced wildfires and droughts against two oil and gas companies that it claims are responsible for these harms."
center
"The question before the Supreme Court is a technical one: Whether federal law prevents Boulder County from suing energy companies in state court and claiming that the sale and allegedly deceptive marketing of fossil fuels violates state law."
"Lawyers for Exxon and Suncor warn that if the Supreme Court allows these suits to move forward and they are ultimately successful, they would effectively impose a carbon tax on fossil-fuel producers and 'bankrupt' the industry."
"doing so in this case would clash with a core tenet of 'originalism,' the legal theory those justices faithfully apply: that the Constitution's framers designed a system intended to favor states' power over the federal government's."
"The court could issue a 4-4 ruling, which would uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling but would not establish any precedent. The court could also rule that it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case."
"The energy giants argue that such claims should be heard in federal -- not state -- court and that federal environmental laws should apply."
right
"If one state can impose massive liability based on the global effects of fossil-fuel production, then every state can effectively set national—indeed international—energy policy through its courts."
"Catholic schools, banned rifles and 'climate lawfare': Blockbuster fights await Supreme Court"
"State and local governments have filed similar cases around the country, seeking through litigation what environmental activists have often failed to achieve through legislation."
"The companies, Suncor and ExxonMobil, say lawsuits aren't the way to deal with the global issue. They have the backing of the Trump administration, which argues the litigation is a power grab intended to impose regulations on emissions."
"This is one is to basically extract a huge payday from these companies and two is to use lawsuits essentially to force these companies to stop producing fossil fuels because that's the only really way to avoid ruinous liability."
What each side left out
The left left out — covered by the EL PAÍS English & WSJ Opinion video
- The states'-rights/originalist tension that actually favors Boulder and complicates a simple conservative-vs-climate narrative
- Detailed explanation of the AEP v. Connecticut (2011) precedent foreclosing federal common-law climate suits
The right left out — covered by the The New Republic & USA Today & NPR
- The documented evidence that Exxon's own scientists accurately modeled climate damage while publicly disputing the science
- Boulder's specific wildfire/drought harms as sympathetic context (e.g., Marshall Fire)
The center left out — covered by the The New Republic & NPR
- The moral/culpability dimension of corporate climate deception (centers mostly treat it as a jurisdictional technicality)
The right left out — covered by the Los Angeles Times
- The broader implication that a ruling for companies could lessen states' ability to regulate ALL pollution (Chemerinsky's warning)
The left left out — covered by the Barron's & City Journal & Reason
- Industry's specific 'equal sovereignty' constitutional argument that states cannot regulate out-of-state conduct
What's actually true?
[verified] The Supreme Court opened its 2026-27 term on Oct. 5 with Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County as the first case argued.
[verified] Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the Suncor case, raising the possibility of a 4-4 split that would uphold the Colorado Supreme Court without setting precedent.
[verified] CBS reported Alito's 2025 financial disclosure listed stocks in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 but not Exxon or Suncor; the recusal letter gave no reason.
[verified] Boulder's lawsuit began in 2018 and seeks monetary damages for climate impacts such as wildfires, flooding and drought.
[verified] The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the lawsuit was not preempted by federal law and could proceed in state court.
[verified] The Trump administration's Justice Department, reversing the Biden administration's stance, backed the energy companies via a friend-of-the-court brief.
[verified] Dozens of similar climate lawsuits by states and localities, modeled on 1990s tobacco litigation, are pending nationwide, with none yet going to trial.
[verified] A 2011 Supreme Court decision, AEP v. Connecticut, held that states could not sue utilities for climate damages under federal common law, pushing litigants toward state-court claims.
The narrative clash
Whether the climate suits are a legitimate tort remedy or an illegitimate attempt to set national policy
Left: This litigation is not an attempt to solve climate change; it merely asks that petitioners bear their fair share of local costs incurred in part because of their tortious conduct. (Boulder's brief, quoted)
Right: If one state can impose massive liability based on the global effects of fossil-fuel production, then every state can effectively set national—indeed international—energy policy through its courts.
Whether a state can constitutionally address harms with interstate/global origins
Left: The Constitution generally permits states to use their traditional authority to address harms arising within their own borders.
Right: the structure of our constitutional system does not permit a State to provide relief under state law for injuries allegedly caused by pollution emanating from outside the State.
Characterization of the plaintiffs' motive
Left: the local cost of that deception (framing plaintiffs as seeking recovery for documented corporate deception)
Right: This is one is to basically extract a huge payday from these companies and two is to use lawsuits essentially to force these companies to stop producing fossil fuels
40 sources analyzed
NBC News cbsnews.com HuffPost The New Republic Washington Examiner Los Angeles Times The Damage Report WSJ Barron's MSN (UK) SCOTUSblog NPR Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com PBS CNN Reuters The Hill Newsweek USA Today washingtonpost.com City Journal Reason Magazine Fox News Fox News Newsmax Gallup News washingtontimes.com ncregister.com EL PAÍS English Fox News Yahoo Maryland Daily Record Fox News Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance New York Post New York Post Boston Herald New York Post Richmond Times-Dispatch New York Post