The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear arguments in a case brought by Boulder, Colorado, accusing Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil of deceiving the public about fossil fuels’ role in climate change. The ruling marks the court’s first major engagement with lawsuits seeking to hold the energy industry financially liable for climate-related damage including wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms.

The case will likely determine whether climate-related damages lawsuits can proceed in state courts or must be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been dismissed. Dozens of other lawsuits by states and municipalities across California, Hawaii, New Jersey and beyond are pending, each waiting to see how the court rules.

The Case

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the Boulder case marks a major moment for climate litigation. The Colorado city is one of multiple jurisdictions attempting to hold oil and gas companies responsible for climate damages through the courts, arguing that companies deceived the public about fossil fuels’ contribution to rising temperatures.

Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil appealed to the Supreme Court after Colorado’s highest court allowed the Boulder lawsuit to proceed. The companies contend that climate change is a national matter belonging in federal court, where courts have previously dismissed similar suits.

The companies’ attorneys argued that “The use of state law to address global climate change represents a serious threat to one of our Nation’s most critical sectors.” ExxonMobil said that “climate policy shouldn’t be set through fragmented state‑court actions.”

Administration Support for Industry

The Trump administration weighed in Monday to support the companies. The Justice Department urged the court to reverse the Colorado decision, warning it would mean “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.” The administration has also taken other steps critical of the lawsuits: Trump criticized them in an executive order, and the Justice Department has moved to block some in court.

Boulder’s Defense

Boulder’s legal team countered that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from addressing in-state damage caused by out-of-state conduct. “There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” Boulder’s attorneys wrote.

City officials emphasized the practical impact of climate change in their region. Jonathan Koehn, Boulder’s climate initiatives director, said the case was “fundamentally, about fairness.” He added: “Boulder is already experiencing the effects of a rapidly warming climate, and the financial burden of adaptation should not fall solely on local taxpayers.”

The Boulder case is one of many climate lawsuits advancing through the courts. Governments across the country are seeking billions in damages to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms linked to climate change. Similar cases are advancing in California, Hawaii, New Jersey and beyond, each awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the jurisdictional question.

The Supreme Court asked both sides to submit additional arguments on whether the case is truly ready for judicial review. Arguments before the full court are expected in the fall.