The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a case that could decide whether state courts, rather than Congress or federal regulators, get to set the price of climate change. Billions of dollars hang on the answer.
The city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in 2018. They allege the companies broke state law by deceiving the public about their contributions to climate change, and they want unspecified damages to help pay for worsening disasters. The outcome could shape a wave of similar suits: Boulder is one of dozens of jurisdictions across the United States pursuing oil and gas companies, while litigation is spreading around the world.
The Industry and Federal Argument
The companies say a state courtroom is the wrong venue for a planetary problem. Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers' Accountability Project, an industry group, put it bluntly. “The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on earth,” he said. “We need to figure out how to address that. We need to address it in a very meaningful way. This litigation doesn't do that.”
The Trump administration backs the companies. Federal attorneys call the suits a backdoor effort to regulate heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions and an unconstitutional power grab. “No one state can superimpose its own regulatory preferences on the rest,” they wrote, “least of all to address a global problem that exists almost entirely outside its borders and affects the world at large.”
The government bases its position on the Clean Air Act, which it says gives Washington, not the states, authority to regulate emissions. That argument may have a wrinkle. The administration has largely used that authority to roll back environmental rules; last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed limits on planet-warming emissions from coal- and natural-gas-fueled power plants. The article noted that move could complicate the government's case.
The Human Cost on the Ground
The plaintiffs' case has a face. Tawnya Somauroo's home in Louisville, Colorado, was destroyed less than an hour after the first warning that a wildfire was headed toward her suburban street. That was the 2021 Marshall Fire, which caused an estimated $2 billion in damage, the costliest wildfire in Colorado history. Climate change was considered a factor. She has spent nearly five years rebuilding and working to help her neighborhood withstand another blaze.
The work may not be enough. Somauroo worries that careful landscaping, metal fencing and flame-resistant siding won't protect the neighborhood. “We lost our homes and they left us to figure out for ourselves how to make our neighborhoods safe again,” she 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.”
Boulder says it isn't trying to regulate emissions beyond its borders. It wants companies to pay local costs. Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, which filed an amicus brief, said, “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.” Chris Winter, executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, an environmental research group in Colorado, said the case “could very well set a precedent.”
One detail cuts against the idea that the suit responds to the fire. Boulder filed in 2018, three years before the Marshall Fire.
The Court's Options
The case reaches a conservative-majority court where environmental regulations haven't always fared well. A 2022 decision limited the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Only eight justices will sit on this one. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments after calls for him to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. A tie vote is possible, though the likelihood is unclear.
The justices are also weighing whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage. Experts call that question a potential off-ramp, a way to sidestep the larger fight for now.
Why This Matters:
At bottom, the dispute is about who makes policy. If state courts can award damages tied to emissions released worldwide, judges and juries in dozens of jurisdictions could set de facto energy and climate rules, case by case, with billions at stake. Companies facing that patchwork would bear costs that eventually reach consumers and investors. Supporters of the suits argue local taxpayers shouldn't absorb disaster costs alone, and that concern is real. But the industry's point—that climate change has countless contributors and requires a coherent national answer—goes to the heart of how a federal system should handle problems that don't stop at state lines. A ruling for the companies would push the debate back to Congress and federal agencies, where accountable officials, not individual courtrooms, would weigh the tradeoffs.