Supreme Court set to hear Suncor v. Boulder climate lawsuit arguments

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Monday in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.

Supporters of Suncor and ExxonMobil argue there will be nationwide consequences as a result of this and dozens of other similar cases while some expressed confidence that the court will not allow one county to decide the energy policy of the nation.

CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told The Center Square that “the Supreme Court will hear the most consequential energy case of the term, and it isn't really about Suncor or ExxonMobil.

“It's about whether a single county's jury can dictate energy policy for the entire country, a power the Constitution gives to Congress, not a courtroom in Boulder,” Isaac said.

“The Justice Department itself has now told the Court as much, warning that one city cannot use its own state's law to set the rules for energy production nationwide,” Isaac said.

“American Energy is confident the Court will side with the Constitution over courtroom lawfare, and with it, every American who fills a gas tank or pays a power bill,” Isaac said.

Ongoing for years, Suncor Energy v. Boulder is essentially a lawsuit where Colorado’s Boulder County is attempting to make energy companies pay for the damages caused by climate change

The Center Square reported it is “a case challenging whether state and local governments can utilize tort laws to seek billions in damages against energy companies over alleged contributions to climate change.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February 2026, with oral arguments set for Monday, Oct. 5.

In August, 28 amicus briefs were filed in support of Boulder County, with a watchdog warning many of the briefs had connections to left-wing organizations and dark money. The briefs argue that the Supreme Court should allow the lawsuit brought by Boulder County go to trial.

At a panel discussion hosted by the conservative Civitas Institute, University of Georgia law professor Hillel Levin said that federal law doesn't preclude state and local laws in cases such as this and it should go to trial.

More from this section

Noel Gallagher’s MTV Unplugged guitar sells for record $300,000

US regulators want to make corporate earnings reports less frequent, but investors have doubts

Vintage Train Rides Deliver Fall Foliage and Holiday Cheer

But president of the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) Carrie Severino told The Center Square that Suncor v. Boulder “is a last resort for climate activists, who are attempting to hold energy companies accountable for past and future harm they say stems from global climate change.”

“The case is part of a broader push by the left to weaponize the court and enact extreme environmental policies through lawfare, rather than through support from voters and lawmakers,” Severino said. 

Severino warned that “if Boulder succeeds, the floodgates could be open for states like Colorado and California to set national climate policy and regulate a number of industries in other states.”

Executive director of consumer advocacy group Alliance for Consumers O.H. Skinner likewise told The Center Square that the lawsuit in question is a case of lawfare, or creating policies through the courtroom rather than the traditional legislative process.

“Having lost at the ballot box, climate activists have turned to the courts to force through extreme policies that voters have rejected repeatedly,” Skinner said.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Suncor will determine how far outside their borders a county or state may project their regulatory powers, and whether the nation’s energy policy is to be set by Congress or progressive activists in Boulder, Colorado,” Skinner said.

As a point of interest, Severino told The Center Square how a “member of Boulder’s legal team admitted that their strategy is a bid to impose a ‘carbon tax’ that could bankrupt the energy industry and ultimately harm the American consumer.”

“Beyond that, the sweeping claims at issue in Suncor could open the floodgates for similar lawfare-based litigation involving cars, firearms, and other sectors that are a huge part of everyday life,” Severino said.