The U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with a case that could decide whether local governments can use state courts to make oil and gas companies pay for disasters tied to climate change. Boulder, Colorado, and Boulder County sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in 2018. Eight years later, the case has reached the nation's highest court, with billions of dollars at stake nationwide.
The Case
The city and county seek unspecified damages under state law. They say the companies misled the public about their contributions to climate change and the costs of disasters linked to it. Boulder County is among dozens of jurisdictions pursuing similar claims, so the ruling could reach far beyond Colorado.
The suit predates the 2021 Marshall Fire, which was considered a climate change factor. The blaze caused an estimated $2 billion in damage and became the costliest wildfire in Colorado history. Tawnya Somauroo lost her home. She says she got her first warning less than an hour before it burned and has spent nearly five years rebuilding. “At the end of the day, it comes out of our pockets, you know?” Somauroo said. “And it does feel like maybe the oil and gas industry should have a part in this.”
The Industry and Federal Response
The companies don’t dispute that the damage is real. They dispute the venue. Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an industry group, argued that no single industry caused the problem. “The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on earth,” he said. “This litigation doesn’t do that.”
The Trump administration backs the companies. Federal attorneys call the lawsuits a backdoor attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and an unconstitutional power grab. “No one state can superimpose its own regulatory preferences on the rest,” they wrote, adding that the problem exists “almost entirely outside its borders.” They contend the Clean Air Act gives the federal government, not states, authority over emissions.
But that argument faces a complication. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, giving up some of its climate authority. Boulder’s allies say the repeal weakens the federal position. Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, which filed an amicus brief, said the county isn’t trying to change policy elsewhere. “Boulder County and city aren’t trying to change what’s happening in Texas or New York, they’re trying to get compensation for things happening now in Colorado,” he said.
A Divided Bench, Possible Exits
The conservative-majority court hasn’t always welcomed environmental claims. A 2022 decision, four years ago, limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments after calls for him to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. Eight justices are expected to hear the case, leaving open the possibility of a tie vote.
The court is also weighing whether it has jurisdiction at this stage. Experts describe that question as a potential “off-ramp,” meaning the justices could sidestep the larger dispute. Chris Winter, executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, an environmental research group in Colorado, said local governments play “a very important role” in helping front line communities adapt. He said the case “could very well set a precedent.”
Why This Matters:
The case asks who sets climate policy and who pays for it. If state-court suits can force energy producers to cover local disaster costs, courts and juries in dozens of jurisdictions could set liability for a global issue. The result would be a patchwork of rulings, not a national standard written by elected lawmakers. Energy companies and their investors would face billions in uncertain exposure. The industry and administration say Congress and federal agencies, not state judges, should make that decision. Homeowners like Somauroo still face real rebuilding costs, and the justices’ answer—or their decision to avoid one—will shape where those claims can be heard.