In 60 seconds: The Supreme Court heard nearly two hours of arguments Monday in its first major climate case in 15 years — deciding whether cities like Boulder, Colorado can sue ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy under state law for climate damage. Dozens of similar lawsuits and billions of dollars are riding on the outcome.
- Boulder, Colorado is suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, arguing the companies misled the public about fossil fuels while knowingly contributing to climate damage.
- The oil companies want the court to kill the case now, arguing local governments can't use state laws to tackle a global issue — a fight the Trump administration is backing.
- The justices gave little away Monday; a 4-4 split is possible since Justice Alito recused himself — which would let Boulder's lawsuit proceed.
- Dozens of similar suits nationwide, modeled on the tobacco and opioid cases, put billions of dollars at stake.
- A ruling is expected by the end of June.
For the first time in fifteen years, the Supreme Court spent a morning arguing about climate change — and after nearly two hours, nobody in the room could confidently say which way it would go.
Boulder, Colorado wants Big Oil to pay for the wildfires, floods, and scorching heat waves it says fossil fuels helped cause. ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy want the whole lawsuit thrown out before trial. And the White House has picked a side.
What happened
Boulder is suing ExxonMobil, America's largest energy company, and Suncor Energy, which operates Colorado's only two oil refineries. The city says they violated state law by misleading the public about fossil fuels' environmental effects while knowingly contributing to the problem — and wants damages to help pay for local impacts like wildfires, severe storms, extreme heat, and flooding.
Exxon's attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, urged the court to stop the lawsuits now, given what he called "the extraordinary magnitude of these cases." "This case and others like it reflect an all too regrettable trend of trying to resolve major political issues in court rather than leaving them to the political branches where they belong," he said.
Latest verified facts
The arguments exposed how unsettled the legal ground is — for both sides:
The 2011 ghost. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Boulder's attorney, Kevin Russell, on whether the suit is an end-run around a 2011 ruling, when a unanimous court said cities couldn't force power companies to cut emissions — that was the federal government's call. Boulder's answer: this isn't about emissions. It's about paying for deception. "Since the founding, states have had the power" to address harms within their borders, Russell argued, "even when the conduct causing that injury occurs elsewhere."
The tobacco playbook. Boulder's suit and the dozens like it are explicitly modeled on the successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies — consumer protection statutes and public-nuisance claims. Justice Elena Kagan wanted to know why climate suits should be treated differently. "I'm waiting to see the distinction," she told the oil companies' lawyer.
Kavanaugh's wall. Justice Brett Kavanaugh showed the most sympathy for the industry, arguing the court has repeatedly said regulating pollution is the federal government's job. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel because we've said this multiple times," he said.
The wild cards. Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to agree with the industry "to some degree" but was open to a narrower ruling. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, raising the possibility of a 4-4 tie — which would leave Boulder's lawsuit alive. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson pushed a third path: maybe it's simply too early for the court to weigh in at all.
Why it matters
Here's the thing: this case isn't really about Boulder. Dozens of similar lawsuits have been filed by states and cities across the country — including, Shanmugam noted, a new one just last week. Billions of dollars are potentially at stake, and the decision will either open the courthouse doors to every one of them or slam them shut.
The backdrop makes it even more combustible. The Trump administration is backing Exxon and Suncor's appeal while dismantling federal climate regulations, pulling out of international climate agreements, and promoting fossil fuel production. If the court kills these lawsuits while the federal government walks away from climate regulation, cities may have nowhere left to go.
Impact on the USA and the world
If Boulder keeps its case alive, expect a flood: cities and states facing wildfire and flood bills would have a court-tested roadmap — the tobacco playbook, applied to carbon. The fossil fuel industry could face liability that reshapes how it operates in America.
If the industry wins, the 2011 ruling's shadow grows longer, and climate accountability moves entirely to the political branches — where it's currently going nowhere. Either way, the courts have become the decisive arena for American climate policy.
Related coverage: Millions Could Be Locked Up Without a Bond Hearing: Supreme Court Just Took Up Trump's Biggest Immigration Case | Supreme Court Just Opened the Door: Trump Can Now Send Migrants to 29 Countries They've Never Set Foot In
What happens next
The justices will rule by the end of June, and the tea leaves are genuinely hard to read. Barrett's openness to a narrower ruling and the 4-4 deadlock scenario both point toward a messier outcome than either side wants. With a new lawsuit filed just last week, the next round is already being written — whatever the court decides will only be the opening bell.