A Supreme Court case deciding whether cities can sue oil companies into oblivion over climate change could send gas prices soaring and gut domestic energy production if justices greenlight a legal crusade that has already failed at the ballot box.
At issue is Suncor v. Boulder, argued this term, which will determine whether states and municipalities can use state tort law to extract billions from fossil fuel producers for damages allegedly caused by emissions that cross state lines. Roughly 30 similar suits are pending nationwide. A ruling against the companies opens the floodgates.
Boulder County sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018, claiming the companies "knowingly and substantially" worsened the climate crisis while "concealing and misrepresented" the dangers of their products. The complaint cites a 1977 internal Exxon memo stating that "current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors" the link between fossil fuels and rising CO2 emissions. Boulder is seeking damages to cover costs from drought, fire, and flooding — including the 2021 Marshall Fire, which destroyed over 1,000 homes and 6,000 acres near the Suncor refinery in Commerce City.
But the stakes extend far beyond Colorado. Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Boulder's attorney, Kevin Russell, on whether the legal theory could expose any large business — retailers, manufacturers — to similar suits. "Nothing in our theory prevents that," Russell conceded. Justice Brett Kavanaugh separately warned that enough lawsuits could "bankrupt" defendants.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox News Digital that a wave of successful suits would trigger a "mass exodus" from the industry, creating fuel scarcity and driving up prices. "That's really what this is about," Isaac said. "It's about controlling these companies and stopping the use of hydrocarbons."
He's right, and Boulder's own former counsel all but admitted it. David Bookbinder, who previously served as counsel of record for Boulder, described the lawsuit as a way to implement an "indirect carbon tax" during a Federalist Society forum last year. O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, put it plainly: the suits are an attempt to accomplish through the courts what climate advocates have been unable to achieve through Congress.
The Boulder Daily Camera's editorial board framed the case as David versus Goliath — municipalities against oil giants — and noted that Exxon earned $28 billion in 2025 while contributing nothing to the Marshall Fire Relief Fund. But Exxon's lobbying and political donations don't change the constitutional question: whether federal courts or state courts have jurisdiction over claims that effectively regulate national energy policy.
Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself, meaning a 4-4 stalemate would leave in place the Colorado Supreme Court's May 2025 ruling allowing the suit to proceed in state court — exactly where the oil companies don't want to be. Corey Riday-White, legal director for the Center for Climate Integrity, insists the industry simply "doesn't want the damning evidence of their climate lies to be presented at trial."
The question for the Court is not whether climate change is real or whether Exxon is sympathetic. It is whether the judiciary should become the vehicle for a policy agenda that Congress repeatedly refused to pass — and whether any American industry can survive once state courts are turned into regulatory weapons.
