WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments in October in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case that will determine whether state and local governments can pursue climate change lawsuits against oil companies — or whether federal law shuts them down.
The stakes are high: nearly two dozen similar cases nationwide hang on the outcome.
Boulder County and the city of Boulder filed their lawsuit in 2018, accusing major oil producers including Exxon and Suncor of deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. The suit seeks compensation for public costs tied to rising seas and intensifying storms, which the communities attribute to global climate change.
Oil companies argue that federal law — specifically the Clean Air Act — preempts state common law tort claims on climate change. They contend that using state tort law to address a global issue conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and undermines federal primacy over air quality regulation.
Boulder County and its allies counter that the lawsuit is a valid exercise of state power. They argue that state common law has long provided remedies for environmental harm and that the Clean Air Act regulates point-source emissions — not the production, sale or marketing of fossil fuel products, nor deceptive marketing practices.
Environmental groups have filed briefs urging the court to let the lawsuits proceed. The Natural Resources Defense Council argued that oil companies' claims about the inability to quantify individual contributions to climate change are wrong. "Boulder should have an opportunity to proceed to the merits of its case and show that its harms are attributable to Petitioners' greenhouse gas emissions," the NRDC said.
Our Children's Trust, a legal group focused on climate litigation, submitted a brief highlighting climate-related natural disasters' impact on children. The group cited wildfires, extreme heat and heavy precipitation in Boulder, arguing those events force youth to miss school and harm their health.
A coalition of Democratic-led states, including Colorado and California, also urged the court to side with Boulder County. Their brief argued that doubts about the merits of Boulder's suit are no reason to preempt state common law claims, and that state courts are capable of applying the law faithfully. "If Boulder's claims are meritless, state courts can dismiss them on that basis. Preemption is not the answer," the coalition said.
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrators and officials backed Boulder's position, arguing the Clean Air Act does not foreclose state-level climate lawsuits. They said the act allows states to regulate emissions more strictly than federal minimums, preserving a substantial state role in protecting public health.
The Justice Department and conservative groups including CFACT have asked the court to shut down the lawsuits. Conservative legal scholar John Yoo, who filed an amicus brief in the case, called on the justices to "end environmental extortion of American energy."
Beyond the merits, the court has also asked both sides to address whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at all, given that it has not reached a final resolution in the Colorado courts. Boulder County argues the court can only review final judgments — not interlocutory rulings — and that the Colorado Supreme Court merely declined to dismiss the suit.
Oil companies counter that the court has jurisdiction because the Colorado decision forces them to incur costs by continuing to defend the lawsuits, and that those ongoing litigation expenses constitute a cognizable injury. Congress is also weighing legislation that would grant the industry immunity from climate lawsuits — a move Boulder County called "impatient" on the companies' part.
