Supreme Court to Hear Exxon and Suncor Bid to Move Boulder Climate-Damages Suit to Federal Court
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s appeal seeking to move Boulder County’s climate-damages lawsuit into federal court after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed it to proceed. The companies — backed by the Trump Justice Department — argue that allowing state-law climate suits would pose a “serious threat” to a critical national sector and could let “every locality in the country” sue “essentially anyone in the world,” while Boulder counters that states may seek relief for in‑state harms caused by out‑of‑state conduct and that the case is at an early stage. The justices have asked for briefing on whether the case is procedurally ripe and are expected to hear arguments in the fall.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court has granted review of Boulder County, Colorado’s climate-damages lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor, after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed.
- The conservative-majority Supreme Court agreed to hear the companies’ appeal seeking to move the case from state to federal court.
- ExxonMobil and Suncor argue that using state law to address global greenhouse-gas emissions poses a "serious threat" to a critical national sector and therefore must be handled in federal court; they note similar federal cases have been dismissed.
- The Trump administration’s Justice Department sided with the companies, urging the Court to reverse the Colorado ruling and warning that allowing such state suits could let "every locality in the country" sue "essentially anyone in the world" for contributing to climate change.
- Boulder counters that there is no constitutional bar to states seeking relief for in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct and that the case is still in its early stages and should remain in state court.
- The Supreme Court has requested briefing on whether the case is procedurally ripe for review at this stage, and arguments are expected to be heard in the fall.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
February 23, 2026
5:30 PM
Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits
New information:
- Confirms that the conservative-majority Supreme Court has agreed to hear Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil’s appeal seeking to block Boulder County’s climate-damages lawsuit by forcing it into federal court.
- Details the companies’ legal argument that using state law to address global climate change presents a 'serious threat' to a critical national sector and should be handled in federal court, where similar cases have been dismissed.
- Describes the Trump administration’s Justice Department position siding with the companies and warning that the Colorado ruling could let 'every locality in the country' sue 'essentially anyone in the world' over climate contributions.
- Highlights Boulder’s counterargument that states can seek relief for in‑state harms caused by out‑of‑state conduct and that the case is still in early stages and should remain in state court.
- Notes that the Supreme Court has also asked for briefing on whether the case is procedurally ripe for review at this stage and that arguments are expected in the fall.
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.