Supreme Court Takes Up Boulder Climate-Damages Lawsuit Against Exxon and Suncor
The Supreme Court has agreed to review Boulder, Colorado’s climate-damages suit against ExxonMobil and Suncor after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed. The oil companies (backed by the Trump administration) argue such litigation raises national questions about global emissions that belong in federal court to avoid widespread liability, while Boulder contends there is no constitutional barrier to states addressing in‑state harms from out‑of‑state conduct and the case should remain in state court.
📌 Key Facts
- The U.S. Supreme Court has granted review in Boulder, Colorado's climate-damages lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed.
- The lawsuit, brought by the city of Boulder, seeks damages related to climate change and targets major oil and gas companies including ExxonMobil and Suncor.
- The companies' central argument is that disputes over global emissions raise federal questions that belong in federal court and that using state law to litigate climate change poses a "serious threat" to a critical national sector.
- The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, warning that allowing state courts to hear such cases could mean "every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world" for contributing to climate change.
- Boulder argues there is no constitutional bar to states addressing in‑state harms caused by out‑of‑state conduct and says the case should remain in state court at this stage.
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
February 23, 2026
4:46 PM
Supreme Court agrees to hear from oil, gas companies trying to block climate lawsuits
New information:
- Confirms that the Supreme Court has granted review in the Boulder, Colorado climate-damages case against ExxonMobil and Suncor, after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed it to proceed.
- Provides the companies’ core argument that global emissions issues must be handled in federal court because using state law to litigate climate change is a 'serious threat' to a critical national sector.
- Details the Trump administration’s position urging the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, warning that allowing such state cases would mean 'every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world' for contributing to climate change.
- Includes Boulder’s counter-argument that there is no constitutional bar to states addressing in‑state harms from out‑of‑state conduct and that the case should remain in state court at this stage.