The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will determine whether Colorado communities can sue fossil fuel companies for damages caused by climate change.
The city of Boulder and Boulder County on the Front Range, along with San Miguel County in southwestern Colorado, initially sued ExxonMobil and Suncor USA in 2018, saying that these companies concealed the risks of their products and knowingly contributed to the climate crisis. They say these companies should pay their fair share for the damages caused by climate change that would otherwise be borne by taxpayers; In Colorado, those include longer wildfire seasons, shorter winters, and other severe weather events.
The two cases are now separated, and San Miguel County’s case is proceeding in a federal district court in Denver. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last year that that federal law does not pre-empt Boulder’s claims, and that the case could proceed in state court.
In their arguments to the Colorado Supreme Court, and now to the Supreme Court of the United States, ExxonMobil and Suncor say the city and county should not be able to sue them, because federal laws pre-empt states from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Marco Simons, an attorney with EarthRights International, is representing Boulder and Boulder County.
“We would rather have been able to proceed with this case in Colorado court sooner rather than later,” he said. “So, we would rather avoid the delay that comes with a Supreme Court hearing. But we are confident that our legal position is correct, and that it's not an ideological position.”
He said this petition, filed by the companies in August, represents a “Hail Mary” from the fossil fuels companies.
“They’re asking for this case to go away, and they’re asking for the Supreme Court to essentially bail them out and say that federal law means that oil companies are essentially immune from liability from their contributions to the climate crisis,” he said.
The Trump administration, which has been largely sympathetic to the interests of fossil fuels companies, could have thrown a wrench into Exxon and Suncor’s argument. The two companies are arguing that because the federal government is responsible for regulating greenhouse emissions, it precludes states from doing so.
However, earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the 2008 Endangerment Finding. The Obama-era rule established that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to public health and safety, and therefore, charged the EPA with regulating them. Now, the federal government has repealed its own ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Simons said the administration’s efforts to protect the oil and gas industry may have gotten ahead of its own legal strategy.
“In their eagerness to do everything they can think of to protect the profits of oil companies, they have made fundamentally inconsistent statements about the Clean Air Act and federal authority to address greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
But regardless, Simons said this case isn’t about who can regulate greenhouse gas emissions—Boulder isn’t trying to do that.
“It’s about providing some remedy for harms that have been caused by companies who have systematically deceived the public about the risks of their products,” he said
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the fossil fuel companies, that could impact other climate accountability lawsuits brought by communities around the country — including San Miguel County’s.
But Simons said the Court’s conservative majority doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll rule in favor of the fossil fuel companies, noting that conservative justices have favored legal approaches that give states authority to make their own regulations.
Suncor USA has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Copyright 2026 Rocky Mountain Community Radio. This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Aspen Public Radio.
