The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a closely watched dispute over whether federal law blocks state-court claims seeking damages from oil and gas companies for climate-change-related harms. The justices also directed the parties to address whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision at this stage of the litigation.
On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County (docket 25-170), a case stemming from climate-related lawsuits brought by Boulder County and the City of Boulder against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy entities.
The case follows a May 2025 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the local governments’ claims—brought under state law theories such as nuisance and related causes of action—to move forward in Colorado courts, rejecting arguments that the claims are displaced or preempted by federal law.
The energy companies argue that the suits, though pleaded under state law, effectively seek to impose liability for harms allegedly caused by interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions, an area they say is governed by federal law and federal constitutional structure. Industry-aligned groups and some commentators have framed the dispute as a test of whether state courts can adjudicate claims with nationwide or global implications.
In its order granting review, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of adding a second issue for briefing and argument, directing the parties to address whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case given that it comes to the Court before a final merits judgment.
Boulder County and the City of Boulder have argued in prior filings and public statements that Supreme Court review is premature because the litigation has not yet produced a final judgment. Supporters of the lawsuit say the claims seek compensation for local costs tied to climate impacts, while the defendant companies have denied liability and contend the case is not appropriate for state-court resolution.
The case is being watched nationally because it is among a broader set of climate accountability lawsuits filed by states and municipalities seeking damages from fossil fuel companies. The Court is expected to schedule argument in a future term; a decision would most likely come after argument in 2026, depending on the Court’s calendar.
Commentary and reactions
Commentary quoted by The Daily Wire included statements from constitutional attorney Christopher Mills and George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki criticizing the lawsuits as an attempt to set national energy policy through state tort litigation. Former Bush administration official John Shu also argued, as characterized in that commentary, that greenhouse gas regulation implicates Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and federal environmental law.
