The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that let Boulder and Boulder County pursue state-law tort claims against ExxonMobil and Suncor over alleged climate-change harms, a case with potential implications for similar lawsuits around the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court on February 23, 2026, agreed to hear a petition brought by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy seeking to block a Colorado climate-damages lawsuit from proceeding in state court.
The underlying case was filed in April 2018 by the City of Boulder and Boulder County (joined in the broader Colorado litigation by San Miguel County) and accuses ExxonMobil and several Suncor entities of contributing to climate change while misleading the public about the risks of fossil fuels. The local governments seek damages under Colorado law, including nuisance and other tort theories, arguing that climate-related impacts are imposing mounting costs on local taxpayers.
The Supreme Court’s review follows a May 12, 2025, decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that rejected the companies’ preemption arguments and allowed the lawsuit to continue in Boulder County District Court. In that ruling, Colorado’s justices held that the Clean Air Act displaced any relevant federal common law and that the act did not expressly, field-, or conflict-preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law damages claims, sending the case back for further proceedings without addressing the ultimate merits.
In agreeing to take the case, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled it will also consider whether the dispute is procedurally ready for review at this stage. The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
Oil and gas companies have warned that a broad ruling in the Boulder dispute could affect numerous similar cases filed by states, cities and other local governments across the country. Supporters of the local-government suits say state courts should be able to apply state consumer-protection and tort law to alleged in-state harms; the companies counter that climate-change emissions and energy policy are inherently national and international questions better handled through federal law and federal courts.
Separately, ethics questions have been raised in commentary about Justice Samuel Alito’s participation in the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review.
In a January 13, 2025, order denying certiorari petitions in a separate climate-liability case brought by Honolulu, the court’s records show that Alito did not take part in the consideration or decision. The Supreme Court’s public order granting review in the Boulder matter did not include a notation that he was recused.
Alito has faced scrutiny in recent years over undisclosed private travel reported by ProPublica, including a 2008 Alaska fishing trip involving hedge fund manager Paul Singer, and Alito later defended his decision not to recuse in matters involving Singer’s interests in a Wall Street Journal opinion essay.
A recent NBC News poll conducted Feb. 27 to March 3, 2026, found 38% of registered voters said they had “very little” or “no” confidence in the Supreme Court.
Correction and context
Some details circulating in commentary about Alito’s current stock holdings and about specific dollar amounts of particular oil-related investments were not independently confirmed from primary documents in the materials reviewed for this report. Likewise, claims about the exact number of homes destroyed in the 2021 Marshall Fire were not verified here; Colorado officials have widely described the fire as destroying more than 1,000 structures, largely homes, but precise counts vary by source.
