Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Hearing Climate Change Case Against Exxon

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case that could have significant ramifications for climate change and the role of gas and oil companies in global warming. Read on for the details of Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, and what the ruling could mean for who should carry the burden for the impacts of a warming planet.

Supreme Court Reverses Course, Agrees to Hear Climate Change Case

The highest court in the land has agreed to hear a case brought by Exxon Mobil, as the oil giant takes on local governments. Oil and gas companies are trying to assert that federal law prevents local governments from assessing damages for harms triggered by climate change.

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would deliberate on whether it has the power to first hear the dispute. Should it determine that the case falls under its jurisdiction, the top court will hear whether federal regulations prevent lawsuits filed at the local level.

The case on hand began in 2018 when local officials in the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, claimed that oil and gas companies were in violation of state law because they misled the public about the detrimental environmental impacts of fossil fuels. The plaintiff believes that the companies could help to pay for the costs incurred by the local community because of climate change.

The question of who should be responsible for the costs incurred by climate change has been debated across the U.S. state court systems for decades. Several local governments have made the decision to target big oil and gas corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Suncor for their part in global warming.

Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett released a statement about the case, noting that local communities should not have to bear the burden caused by climate change. Brockett said that "The Supreme Court should affirm Colorado's right to hold these companies accountable for the harm they have caused in Colorado."

Exxon Mobil denies the allegations, arguing that local governments cannot lean on the power of state laws to try to combat environmental issues on the global stage. Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said that "climate policy shouldn’t be set through fragmented state‑court actions, and we look forward to making that case before the court."

Attorneys representing Boulder are disputing Exxon's position, stating that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit state and local governments from addressing issues that impact their constituents, even if the conduct comes from out of state. The plaintiff drew references to the fact that states are still allowed to sue for issues such as a negligent vehicle design or the sale of asbestos.

What Precedent Says About the Outcomes of These Cases

Several lawsuits currently working their way through the country's court systems are also going after major energy corporations for similar reasons. These lawsuits have been modeled after the successful judgments won against various tobacco and opioid companies. These judgments typically leaned on the consumer protection statutes or public nuisance claims in their formal opinions.

Not surprisingly, the country's largest energy companies are fighting back, working to prevent the cases from going to trial. The Trump White House has largely supported the oil and gas industry. For example, the U.S. Justice Department recently told the Supreme Court that the case brought by Boulder is in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5 - 2 to allow Boulder's lawsuit to move forward. However, the U.S. Justice Department said that the state's decision was “manifestly wrong on a question of vast nationwide significance,” asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter.

The latest position by the Justice Department is quite different than the stance taken by the agency when former President Joe Biden was in office. During the years of the Biden Administration, the Justice Department said that the Supreme Court should not take on cases before the state courts have seen the ongoing litigation through to the end.

These comments from the agency came when a similar case out of the state of Hawaii was grabbing headlines in 2024. The 2025 Supreme Court then rejected the appeal by the energy industry in the Hawaii case while also declining to get involved in what was happening in the Colorado judicial system.

While the Supreme Court has not set an exact date to hear the Colorado case, it has signaled that arguments will begin this fall.

Looking for stories that inform and engage? From breaking headlines to fresh perspectives, WaveNewsToday has more to explore. Ride the wave of what’s next.