The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Boulder and Boulder County’s lawsuit seeking damages from Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, as residents who lost homes to disasters face the costs of rebuilding themselves. The suit alleges that the companies deceived the public about their contributions to climate change and the costs of disasters linked to it. The justices will hear arguments Monday, the first day of the court’s new term.
Tawnya Somauroo got her first warning that the Marshall Fire was headed toward her suburban street less than an hour before it burned her home. The fire destroyed her house and caused an estimated $2 billion in damage, making it the costliest wildfire in Colorado history. “We lost our homes and they left us to figure out for ourselves how to make our neighborhoods safe again,” Somauroo said. “At the end of the day, it comes out of our pockets, you know? And it does feel like maybe the oil and gas industry should have a part in this.”
Who Pays
Boulder and Boulder County sued the companies in 2018 under state law, seeking unspecified damages to help cover the costs of worsening disasters. The Marshall Fire came after the lawsuit was filed and was considered a climate change factor. Somauroo has spent nearly five years rebuilding her home and making her neighborhood better able to withstand another blaze.
She’s made careful landscaping choices, installed metal fencing and added flame-resistant siding. Still, Somauroo worries those steps won’t be enough. Her account shows that residents shoulder the immediate costs of rebuilding and protecting their homes, while the lawsuit seeks compensation from the companies for alleged deception and climate-related disaster costs.
Boulder County is among dozens of jurisdictions across the United States suing oil and gas companies for help paying for damage from disasters linked to climate change. The litigation forms part of a wave of cases in the United States and around the world, with billions of dollars at stake.
The State’s Role
The Trump administration backs the companies. Federal government attorneys say the state-court lawsuits are a backdoor attempt to regulate heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions and an unconstitutional power grab. “No one state can superimpose its own regulatory preferences on the rest — least of all to address a global problem that exists almost entirely outside its borders and affects the world at large,” they wrote.
The administration says the Clean Air Act gives the federal government, not states, the authority to regulate emissions. The Republican administration has largely used that authority to roll back environmental regulations. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed rules limiting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, giving up some of its climate authority.
That repeal could complicate the federal government’s argument for keeping the cases out of state court. Boulder says it wants compensation for local costs, not regulation of emissions beyond its borders. “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,” said Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, which filed an amicus brief.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court has a conservative majority, and environmental regulations haven’t always fared well there. A 2022 decision limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Eight of the nine justices are expected to hear the case; Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments after calls for him to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. His recusal leaves open the possibility of a tie vote.
The court is also weighing whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage, a question experts call a potential “off-ramp.” The ruling could affect similar lawsuits nationwide. Chris Winter, executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, an environmental research group in Colorado, said local governments play an important role in helping frontline communities adapt to climate change and that the case could set a precedent.