Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Friday, March 20, 2026
Courthouse News Service
Friday, March 20, 2026 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Supreme Court takes up fossil fuel giants’ bid to skirt climate change lawsuit 

This is the first time the high court will weigh in on suits against fossil fuel companies from communities affected by climate change.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review an appeal from fossil fuel giants facing liability over their role in climate change. 

A Colorado county sued Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil in 2018, saying the companies damaged its property and people by producing and selling fossil fuels that exacerbated climate change. In their attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, the fossil fuel giants asked whether federal law blocked state-law claims based on interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” Suncor wrote in its petition. “The court should grant review and clarify 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 county blames the oil producers for interfering with residents’ quiet enjoyment of property and argues the companies damaged Boulder property by driving in flood, fire, hail, rain, snow, wind and invasive species.

Boulder characterizes the petition as the latest version of Suncor’s ever-evolving and mutually inconsistent preemption theories. In 2019, a lower court rejected the company’s bid to move the case to federal court. The Supreme Court refused to review the decision. 

In another bid to dismiss, the fossil fuel giant argued the Clean Air Act and federal foreign affairs powers preempted any state claims. A different court denied Suncor’s motion in 2021. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the ruling in a 5-2 decision last year. 

The county argues Suncor’s federal preemption theory would give judges broad authority over which subjects states can address, instead of leaving those decisions to lawmakers. 

“That would invert our constitutional order,” Boulder wrote. “There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos.” 

Last year, the Supreme Court denied a similar appeal from Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP related to a lawsuit from Honolulu. 

The high court added an additional question to Suncor's appeal, asking both the oil giant and the county to address whether the justices have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Bluesky Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social
Categories / Appeals, Courts, Energy, Environment, National

Subscribe to our free newsletters

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.