US Supreme Court set to hear oil companies' bid to halt Boulder climate lawsuit

The US Supreme Court was scheduled to hear on Monday 5 October 2026 a bid by oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy against a lawsuit brought by officials in Boulder, Colorado, according to the Guardian and Reuters. The lawsuit seeks money from the companies in connection with harms or costs attributed to climate change. The hearing coincides with the opening of a new nine-month court term.

Both reports were published before the hearing. They do not describe what happened in the courtroom or any outcome.

What is reported

Most of the detail comes from the Guardian alone. According to the Guardian, Boulder officials filed the lawsuit in Colorado court in 2018. The companies first sought to move it to federal court. After the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed toward trial in state court, the companies appealed to the US Supreme Court, arguing for dismissal on grounds of federal preemption.

The Guardian reports that the justices will consider two questions: whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case now, and whether federal law preempts Boulder's case from being heard in state court. If they side with Boulder or find they lack jurisdiction, the case would continue in state court. A ruling for the companies could also apply to dozens of other climate cases brought by state and local governments. A ruling is expected next summer, according to the Guardian.

Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself without giving a reason, the Guardian reports. This followed calls for him to step aside over stock holdings in fossil fuel companies. According to the Guardian, he does not own stock in Suncor or ExxonMobil but holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Unnamed critics say those companies could benefit indirectly from a ruling for the industry.

What each side says

• ExxonMobil and Suncor: According to the Guardian's account of their brief, they argue that the Clean Air Act preempts the case, and that a "federal common law" created by century-old Supreme Court decisions still governs environmental lawsuits across state lines.
• Boulder officials: They say the companies concealed and misrepresented what they knew about the climate damage from burning fossil fuels, and should share the costs imposed on local taxpayers, according to the Guardian.
• Trump administration: It has sided with the companies and asked for 10 minutes of argument time, the Guardian reports. The reports do not describe its arguments.
• Dennis Fan, of Columbia Law School, who wrote an amicus brief in the case, was quoted by the Guardian as saying: "The hope of the industry side is that this is going to be the death blow". He also said of the companies: "They’ve had a little bit of difficulty identifying exactly what that source of federal law is". The reports do not say which side his brief supports.
• Daryl McCool, who lost her home in the 2021 Marshall fire and is not involved in the case, said the companies "need to be held accountable", according to the Guardian.

What is not known

The reports do not include direct statements from the companies, Boulder officials or the administration. They do not state the amount Boulder is seeking, or who called for Alito's recusal.

Analysis

The case turns on two questions, and each points to a different scenario. If the justices find they lack jurisdiction at this stage, or side with Boulder, the lawsuit would continue in Colorado state court, according to the Guardian. If they accept the companies' preemption argument, the Guardian reports that the ruling could reach dozens of similar cases brought by state and local governments. How broadly any decision would be written is not known. Justice Alito's recusal leaves eight justices on the case. Nearly all the available detail rests on a single outlet, so the picture may be incomplete.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.