On Monday, February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear a potentially precedent-setting case that could shape the future of climate change litigation across the country. The case, brought by Boulder and Boulder County against energy giants Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, seeks to hold these companies financially accountable for the costs and damages associated with global warming. This legal battle, originating in Colorado, is now poised to have national—and perhaps global—implications, as it addresses whether local communities can pursue compensation from Big Oil through the courts for climate-related harms.
The roots of this case stretch back to 2018, when Boulder and Boulder County, later joined by San Miguel County, filed a lawsuit against Suncor and Exxon Mobil. The suit alleges that these companies, through their production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels, have contributed significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, thereby exacerbating climate change and causing millions of dollars in damages to local property and residents. Suncor, for instance, operates the Commerce City refinery in Colorado, a facility noted for its substantial carbon dioxide emissions and repeated fines for other pollution violations, according to reporting by The Colorado Sun.
Boulder’s lawsuit is far from an isolated effort. Over the past decade, dozens of cities, counties, and states—including California—have launched similar state-based lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages from major oil and gas producers. These cases generally argue that energy companies not only contributed to climate change but also misled the public about the risks associated with fossil fuel use. As The New York Times notes, many of these lawsuits include consumer fraud claims, asserting that oil companies covered up what they knew about the dangers of their products.
Despite a string of preliminary victories for municipalities in state courts, the oil industry, backed by conservative lawmakers and the Trump administration, has consistently argued that such matters should be handled at the federal level. Their reasoning? Climate change is a global issue, and pollution crosses state lines, making piecemeal state litigation both impractical and potentially unconstitutional. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Suncor and Exxon Mobil asserted, “Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” and urged the justices to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”
The legal tug-of-war over jurisdiction has been fierce. After the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that Boulder’s lawsuit could proceed in state court, Exxon Mobil and Suncor appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The energy companies contended that federal environmental laws and the federal government’s power to conduct foreign policy should preempt state law claims. However, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the oil companies’ arguments amounted to “a vague federal interest over interstate pollution, climate change, and energy policy,” which did not override Boulder’s state-based claims. Importantly, the Colorado court expressed “no opinion on the ultimate viability of the merits” of Boulder’s lawsuit, leaving the substantive questions for another day.
The federal government’s stance on the issue has shifted with changing administrations. The Trump administration took the unusual step of filing a brief in September urging the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing the case had “vast nationwide significance” and should not be left to state-by-state resolution. Conversely, the Biden administration recommended that the justices allow the lawsuits to proceed in state courts, at least for now. As NBC News reported, this divergence underscores the contentious political backdrop against which this legal drama is unfolding.
Environmental advocates and Boulder officials have framed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case as a pivotal moment. “The Supreme Court’s decision to review Boulder’s climate lawsuit is a decisive step toward resolving conflicting rulings nationwide and reaffirming that climate policy belongs with elected policymakers—not the courts,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project. Boulder attorney Marco Simons, representing the plaintiffs, offered a different perspective: “Our view is that it’s a traditional conservative decision to allow states this authority.” Simons further argued that the Trump administration’s position was inconsistent, noting, “They can’t have it both ways.” He explained that the administration cannot claim both that communities lack the right to address climate change and that the federal government has no authority to do so either.
Local leaders have underscored the real-world stakes. Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann stated, “As everyone continues to face rising costs that put budgets under pressure, we must hold oil companies accountable for the significant harm they’ve caused our communities. We move forward with renewed energy and purpose for the next step toward justice.” Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett echoed the sentiment: “Local communities are living with the mounting costs of climate change. The Supreme Court should affirm Colorado’s right to hold these companies accountable for the harm they have caused in Colorado.”
From the industry’s side, Suncor welcomed the Supreme Court’s involvement, stating, “We welcome the U.S. Supreme Court’s review as an important step toward establishing clarity and consistency on this issue. We remain committed to supporting Colorado’s evolving energy needs for years to come.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case has been closely watched, especially since the justices had previously declined to hear similar petitions. The shift comes amid a vigorous push by the oil industry and the Trump administration to shut down climate lawsuits nationwide. Industry allies argue that allowing these suits to proceed could result in billions of dollars in damages and threaten the stability of the U.S. energy sector. Conservative legal scholar John Yoo, who submitted an amicus brief in the Boulder case, wrote that the justices must “end environmental extortion of American energy.”
As it stands, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the fall of 2026, with a decision expected sometime thereafter. The justices have instructed the litigants to address not only the substantive questions but also whether the Supreme Court even has the power to hear the case at this stage. Meanwhile, similar lawsuits by other states and municipalities—including California’s high-profile cases—remain in legal limbo, awaiting the outcome of this pivotal decision.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the Boulder case will not immediately resolve the question of who ultimately pays for climate change damages. If the justices allow the lawsuit to proceed, it will return to Colorado state courts for detailed arguments and, potentially, trial. If not, it could set a powerful precedent limiting the ability of local governments to seek climate accountability from the fossil fuel industry.
With arguments set for October, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court as it prepares to weigh in on one of the most consequential legal battles of the climate era—a fight that could reshape the way America confronts the costs of a warming world.