Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Trump administration has submitted a legal brief asking the Supreme Court to stop Colorado communities from suing fossil fuel companies for climate damages—a move that could shut down similar lawsuits across the country and leave communities with no legal remedy for billions of dollars in climate-related harm.
What Boulder County Is Asking For
Boulder County wants money—damages for the costs they’ve already incurred and will continue to incur as Colorado’s climate deteriorates. Fire weather conditions have worsened significantly. In December 2021, the Marshall Fire tore through Boulder County, destroying more than 1,000 homes and seven commercial buildings. The projected cost exceeded $1 billion, making it Colorado’s most destructive fire in terms of property loss.
The Federal Government’s Arguments
The Solicitor General submitted this brief proactively, signaling that the current administration considers this case a matter of national importance.
The document makes two main arguments. First, that the Constitution’s structure and the Clean Air Act override or block state lawsuits seeking damages related to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. Second, that even if the Constitution didn’t independently bar such claims, the Clean Air Act’s regulatory framework blocks lawsuits seeking damages for harm caused by negligence or wrongdoing.
When Colorado attempts to hold a company liable for damages resulting from emissions that occurred anywhere in the United States or globally, the state is trying to regulate conduct outside its borders, which the Constitution doesn’t allow. Allowing states to impose massive damages liability through tort law for emissions the EPA hasn’t specifically regulated would essentially become regulated by state law, illegally interfering with how the federal government regulates emissions.
When fossil fuel companies previously sought Supreme Court review of climate liability lawsuits, the Biden administration’s Solicitor General urged the Court not to hear the case—opposing intervention. The prior administration argued that climate tort claims were not completely blocked by federal law and that existing precedent supported allowing state courts to hear such cases.
The Coalition Against Boulder County
The Solicitor General’s document doesn’t stand alone. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that when an issue implicates “uniquely federal interests” like the regulation of interstate and international emissions, state law has no role to play.
Communities seeking compensation for climate damages are portrayed as threats to national security, while the companies that produced the emissions causing those damages are cast as victims. The federal government, dozens of state governments, Congress, and the Chamber of Commerce have aligned against two relatively small Colorado municipalities. Boulder County and the City of Boulder haven’t actively promoted their case or sought broader political support in the way energy companies and the federal government have.
The Preemption Question
Federal law can override state law in three ways: when Congress explicitly says so, when Congress has completely taken over an area, or when following both laws is impossible.
The Clean Air Act includes exceptions that protect state authority. Section 116 lets states set stricter standards than federal law requires. The question becomes: Does this exception extend to state tort liability claims? Can a state impose damages liability through its laws for harm caused by unreasonable interference, boundary violations, or carelessness for greenhouse gas emissions?
The fossil fuel companies and the current administration say no. If a state could impose massive damages liability for emissions the EPA has chosen not to regulate directly or has approved, then state tort law would effectively become an indirect way of imposing stricter rules than federal law allows. Allowing individual states to impose liability would frustrate the uniformity the Clean Air Act seeks to create by subjecting companies to varying standards across different jurisdictions.
Financial Stakes of the Litigation
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the energy companies’ argument, courts would likely throw out these cases or move them to federal court. A similar lawsuit in Oregon against energy companies seeks more than $50 billion in abatement costs. The total potential liability across all pending state and municipal climate cases could easily exceed $100 billion.
From the companies’ perspective, this represents an existential threat to their business models and financial viability. From the perspective of plaintiff communities, this represents the only realistic avenue for obtaining compensation for climate-related harms.
If state tort law is blocked, fossil fuel companies will have escaped accountability entirely for their role in creating a climate emergency that imposes trillions of dollars in costs on American communities. Congress hasn’t passed legislation creating federal liability for climate damages. The Clean Air Act doesn’t let people sue for damages.
The Broader Administration Agenda
The Solicitor General’s document reflects the broader current administration climate and energy agenda. The order frames state climate policies not as legitimate exercises of state authority but as illegitimate threats to “American energy dominance” and national security. The current administration argues that state climate superfund laws in New York and Vermont, which impose holding companies responsible for past emissions on energy producers for greenhouse gas emissions, constitute a form of “extortion.”
In parallel with the Supreme Court intervention, the current administration has also filed separate lawsuits against Michigan and Hawaii seeking federal court declarations that their anticipated or pending state climate lawsuits violate federal law and the Constitution. These lawsuits represent an even more aggressive posture, as they attempt to stop state actions before they proceed rather than simply intervening in pending litigation.
The Federalism Contradiction
The current administration’s position is inconsistent with federalism principles that conservatives traditionally champion. State tort law—the ability of individuals and communities to recover damages for harm caused by others’ conduct—has long been understood as a core exercise of state authority, traditionally protected from federal interference except in circumstances of clear congressional intent.
By arguing that federal energy policy requires blocking state tort claims entirely, the current administration adopts a form of federal law blocking state rules more aggressive than what the Clean Air Act’s text and history would support. It’s a curious form of federalism that protects states’ rights to restrict abortion or voting access but not their right to hold corporations accountable for damages within their borders.
Energy companies counter that they can’t fairly be subject to liability under the vague and unpredictable standards of state law when federal law has addressed emissions regulation. They argue that complying with the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations should shield them from tort liability based on those same emissions. They note that the economic consequences of allowing thousands of damages claims across different jurisdictions would amount to an unofficial system of rules imposed through lawsuits more stringent than any federal requirement.
But this requires accepting a premise: that companies following minimum federal standards should be immune from liability for harms they cause, even when those harms are foreseeable, substantial, and measurable. A company can comply with every workplace safety regulation and still be liable if its negligence injures a worker. A manufacturer can meet federal product standards and still face liability if its product causes harm. Regulatory compliance has never been an absolute shield against tort liability.
The International Dimensions
The Solicitor General and the energy companies emphasize that climate change is inherently a global phenomenon—greenhouse gases emitted anywhere in the world affect the entire planet. They argue that allowing individual states to impose damages liability based on how emissions contributed to global climate change effectively allows those states to regulate international and foreign affairs, an area reserved exclusively to the federal government under the Constitution.
Because climate change is a matter of global significance involving treaty obligations, relationships with other nations, and international climate negotiations, the argument proceeds, individual state tort liability would interfere with the federal government’s ability to conduct a coherent foreign policy on climate issues.
Boulder and other plaintiff communities counter that they’re not attempting to regulate foreign affairs or international climate negotiations. They’re merely seeking compensation under ordinary state tort law from companies that caused measurable harm within their borders. The fact that the harm has international causes and effects doesn’t transform a domestic tort claim into a foreign affairs matter.
The argument that states can’t make laws affecting foreign policy represents a relatively novel expansion of that doctrine, applied for the first time to deny state remedies in the climate context. If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, it would establish a principle that any state law claim implicating interstate or international matters could be blocked—a potentially radical expansion of federal power.
If a state can’t hold a company liable for damages caused by global climate change because that would interfere with foreign affairs, what can a state do? Communities that have already suffered billions in damages are supposed to wait for Congress to act, for international treaties to be negotiated, or for the EPA to regulate more stringently.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. It receives thousands of requests to hear cases annually but accepts only about one percent. The Solicitor General’s participation in the case, combined with the extraordinary level of friend-of-the-court briefs from interested parties and the unsettled state of the law, makes acceptance of the case more likely than the typical petition.
If the Court agrees to hear the case, the lawyers will submit detailed written arguments, likely with substantial friend-of-the-court participation from both sides. Oral argument would be scheduled for the next term—probably fall 2026 or early 2027. The Court would then issue a decision sometime in the following term, likely in spring 2027 or beyond. A decision reversing the Colorado Supreme Court would likely apply nationwide, casting doubt on all pending state climate liability lawsuits and potentially providing grounds for dismissal in federal courts considering whether cases should be moved to federal court.
Alternatively, the Court could refuse to hear the case, letting Colorado’s decision stand and permitting the Boulder case to proceed to discovery and potentially trial. This wouldn’t necessarily resolve whether other state courts and federal courts would follow Colorado’s reasoning, but it would allow Colorado’s case to move forward and would leave the legal question unsettled across the country.
The Core Question
Should communities that have suffered measurable climate damages be able to seek compensation from the companies whose products caused those damages?
Boulder County says yes. It argues that state tort law has always provided a remedy for harms caused by others’ conduct, that the Clean Air Act doesn’t block such claims, and that without the ability to seek damages in state court, communities have no legal remedy at all for climate harms.
The Supreme Court’s decision will reveal its fundamental understanding of the proper balance between federal energy policy and state environmental accountability. In an era of climatic crisis imposing trillions in damages on American communities, the choice between allowing communities to seek compensation through state courts or closing those courthouse doors carries immense practical and symbolic significance.
Climate scientists and economists increasingly recognize that the economic costs of climate change are being imposed unequally on communities least responsible for emissions. Low-income communities and communities of color face disproportionate exposure to climate impacts—flooding, extreme heat, wildfires—yet are least culpable for the fossil fuel production causing these impacts.
If the Supreme Court blocks state climate liability lawsuits, those communities will bear the costs of climate change with no legal recourse. The companies that profited from fossil fuel production will have successfully insulated themselves from accountability. The federal government—which has failed to pass climate legislation, failed to establish federal liability standards, and now actively intervenes to block state remedies—will have ensured that no forum exists for climate accountability.
The Supreme Court will make that choice sometime in the next year or two.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.