The Supreme Court began its 2026–27 term Monday by hearing Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170. Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Suncor and ExxonMobil under Colorado law, seeking money for the local costs of a warming climate and alleging the companies misled the public about fossil-fuel risks; Colorado's Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed. The companies, supported by the federal government, argue that federal law, including the Clean Air Act and federal common law, displaces state claims over global emissions. Justice Alito did not participate; the Court gave no reason. Eight justices heard nearly two hours of argument. Justice Thomas raised whether the Court has jurisdiction over a state case without a final judgment, a point Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson returned to. Justice Barrett said, 'Everybody agrees that state tort law is a form of regulation'; Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the suit was 'an attempt to evade' the Court's emissions precedents; Justice Kavanaugh warned such suits could 'bankrupt' defendants; Justice Kagan compared it to tobacco and opioid litigation. Commentators read the liberal justices as leaning toward Boulder and Roberts and Kavanaugh toward the companies. A 4–4 split would affirm Colorado's ruling without precedent; the Court could also dismiss the case as improvidently granted.
Dozens of states and cities have filed similar suits. If the Court says federal law closes the door, those cases end and climate liability goes back to Congress and the EPA. If Boulder survives, even by a tie, the cases move toward discovery and trial, where the companies' internal records become the main event. Alito's absence changes the arithmetic: the companies need five of eight, not five of nine.
Not on your gas bill this year. But the theory being tested, that a product's maker can owe a town for long-run harm, is the same one used against tobacco and opioid makers, and settlements in those cases ran to billions of dollars.
Climate change is a global problem driven by emissions everywhere. Letting one county's jury set a price on oil would give fifty states fifty energy policies; that is what federal law exists to prevent.
Boulder is not regulating emissions; it is asking companies to pay for a cost they allegedly knew about and hid. State courts have handled deception claims against national industries for decades.
Count to five. Without Alito the companies need five of the remaining eight, and Monday's questions suggest they have two firmly. Barrett's line about tort law as regulation is the one to reread when the opinion comes: if she means it as a premise, the companies are close. If she was testing it, a tie or a dismissal is live, and either would send dozens of cases back to state courts. Watch also for the jurisdiction question Thomas raised; it is the Court's quiet exit.
Supreme Court October 2026 argument calendar and hearing list · CBS News · Just Security · Legal Planet · Stanford Law (Oct. 6, on Oct. 5 argument) · SCOTUSblog (recusal) · NPR member stations' preview (Oct. 4) · Order list of Oct. 5
The Court opens its term with Boulder's climate suit against Big Oil. Alito sits out, and a 4–4 tie would let the case go on
Eight justices spent nearly two hours on whether Colorado law can make Suncor and ExxonMobil help pay for climate damage. The three liberals leaned toward Boulder; Roberts and Kavanaugh toward the companies. Alito has recused himself without a stated reason.
The Supreme Court opened its 2026–27 term on Monday with Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170), the first of the dozens of state and local climate suits to be argued before the justices. Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in Colorado state court, claiming under state tort law, including public nuisance and trespass, that the companies sold fossil fuels while misleading the public about the risks and should help pay for the heat, wildfire and flood costs that followed. Colorado's Supreme Court let the case go forward. The companies, backed by the federal government, argue that climate change is a national and global problem that only federal law can govern, and that the Clean Air Act and federal common law leave no room for a state jury to put what amounts to a price on emissions. Justice Samuel Alito did not take part, and the Court gave no reason. That leaves eight justices and opens the door to a 4–4 split, which would leave Colorado's ruling in place without setting a national rule. The stakes reach well beyond Colorado. Similar suits by states and cities, from Honolulu to California, are moving through state courts; a ruling for the companies would end most of them, while a loss would push them toward discovery, where internal company records become evidence. Boulder's case reached the justices before any trial, which is why jurisdiction became the first fight.
Justice Clarence Thomas opened by asking whether the Court even has jurisdiction over a state case that has not reached a final judgment, and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson pressed the same point with the companies' lawyer. Justice Amy Coney Barrett framed the core question: "Everybody agrees that state tort law is a form of regulation." Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the suit was "an attempt to evade" the Court's earlier rulings on emissions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that suits like Boulder's could "bankrupt" defendants and called it a federal law matter. Justice Elena Kagan likened the case to the tobacco and opioid litigation and told the companies' counsel, "I'm waiting to see the distinction." Several justices also resisted the broader claim that the Constitution's structure alone forbids such suits. Besides a tie, the Court could dismiss the case as improvidently granted, saying it should not have taken it. A decision is due by June. The term's first order list, released the same morning, turned away a long list of petitions, including the 'Let's Go Brandon' sweatshirt case and a stack of gun appeals, and added no new cases. The day's second argument, Johnson v. United States Congress, asks whether veterans may challenge the constitutionality of benefits laws in federal district court; a Justice Department lawyer defended the statute in a one-hour argument.