Supreme Court to Review Colorado Climate Lawsuit Against Energy Companies

Case tests whether state and local governments can sue over alleged climate-related harms.

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case of Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder, which challenges a lawsuit filed by Boulder and other local governments against energy companies over alleged climate-related harms. The case will test whether state and local governments can effectively impose their own policies on the whole country by suing industry over global emissions.

Why it matters

The case is seen as a golden opportunity for the Supreme Court to stop local officials from interfering with an industry critical to foreign and national-security policy. The justices have long agreed that states should be pre-empted from undermining the federal government's authority over foreign affairs.

The details

Boulder and other local governments have sought to blame energy companies for worldwide emissions, even though nearly 90% of global emissions originate outside the U.S. The international share of global emissions has been growing for decades, a trend that's likely to persist as the U.S. continues its transition from coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas and as energy access expands in the developing world.

  • On February 24, 2026, the Supreme Court announced it will review the Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder case.

The players

Suncor Energy

An energy company that is a defendant in the lawsuit filed by Boulder and other local governments.

County Commissioners of Boulder

The local government entity that filed the lawsuit against energy companies over alleged climate-related harms.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Liberal and conservative justices have long agreed to pre-empt states from undermining the federal government's authority over foreign affairs.”

— John Yoo, Author (wsj.com)

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between state/local governments and the federal government over climate policy and the extent to which local jurisdictions can impose their own policies on national industries critical to foreign and national security interests.