The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with a case that could let local governments shake down energy companies for billions—and working Americans will foot the bill either way.

Boulder County, Colorado is suing Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in state court, claiming the companies deceived the public about their contributions to climate change and should pay for worsening disasters. The justices won't rule on whether Boulder's claims have merit—only on whether these cases belong in state or federal court. The answer will determine the fate of more than 30 similar lawsuits pending nationwide and could reshape who pays for climate adaptation: shareholders or ratepayers.

Boulder filed suit in 2018, years before the December 2021 Marshall Fire destroyed more than 1,000 homes and caused $2 billion in damage—the costliest wildfire in Colorado history. The Denver Post notes that the case has "bounced around state and federal courts" ever since as the companies fight to keep it from trial. Arkansas Online highlighted the human angle, featuring a fire victim who said: "We lost our homes and they left us to figure out for ourselves how to make our neighborhoods safe again."

The companies want the case in federal court, arguing that climate change is a global problem unsuitable for piecemeal state litigation. "The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on Earth," said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers' Accountability Project. "We need to figure out how to address that. We need to address it in a very meaningful way. This litigation doesn't do that."

The Trump administration is backing the companies, arguing the lawsuits amount to an unconstitutional power grab. "No one state can superimpose its own regulatory preferences on the rest—least of all to address a global problem that exists almost entirely outside its borders and affects the world at large," federal attorneys wrote. They say the Clean Air Act gives the federal government, not states, authority over emissions regulation.

But there's a wrinkle: the EPA just repealed rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas power plants. Arkansas Online reported that the move "could complicate its argument" that federal regulation—not state lawsuits—is the proper venue for climate policy.

Corey Riday-White, legal director for the Center for Climate Integrity, framed the industry's position as evasion: "These big oil companies are really desperate to escape trial in these cases so they're asking the Supreme Court to step in and save them from trial."

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself because he owns stock in other oil and gas companies. He told Bloomberg the decision was "prudent but not required."

University of Colorado law professor Adam Sopko, who co-authored an amicus brief arguing the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, said the decision will hinge on the nuances of the opinion, expected in early 2027.

Here's what nobody on either side is eager to admit: if Boulder wins and the lawsuits proceed in state courts, juries could impose massive damages. Industry groups warn those costs pass straight to consumers at the pump and on utility bills. If the companies win and these cases move to federal court—or get thrown out altogether—local governments will keep raising taxes and fees to cover disaster costs. Working families pay either way. The only question is which pocket gets picked.

The real stakes: whether the courtroom becomes the next regulatory agency, or whether Congress and the executive branch actually have to do their jobs.