Why It Matters
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 5 in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case that could determine whether state and local governments may use state tort law to seek monetary compensation from energy companies for localized climate harms, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published Sept. 30.
Over the last decade, state and local governments have filed dozens of state-law tort suits against energy companies, and the Court's ruling could affect whether such suits can proceed or are preempted by federal law.
The Department of Justice filed an amicus brief siding with the energy companies, taking the unusual step of filing an unsolicited brief supporting Suncor's certiorari petition in September 2025, despite having filed a brief during the previous administration opposing a similar petition in a different climate tort case. Nearly 200 members of Congress and more than 40 states have signed on to amicus briefs supporting either Boulder or the energy companies.
The Big Picture
The suits now pending in state courts, including Boulder's, largely rest on theories of deceptive marketing rather than seeking court orders requiring defendants to reduce emissions.
Before reaching the merits, the Court must resolve two threshold issues: Boulder argues Suncor and Exxon Mobil lack standing because they have not yet suffered a concrete injury and separately argues the Court lacks statutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) because the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was interlocutory rather than a final judgment. If a majority accepts either argument, the case could be resolved without a ruling on the preemption question.
The report also notes that the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule interpreting the Clean Air Act as not authorizing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, published at 91 Fed. Reg. 59002 on Sept. 17. The report notes that congressional limits on EPA's greenhouse gas authority "could undermine CAA-based preemption arguments" like those Suncor is advancing.
Two bills introduced in the 119th Congress, the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act, H.R. 8330, and its Senate companion, S. 4340, both introduced April 16, would bar suits seeking relief for harm resulting directly or indirectly from climate change against people or companies engaged in the energy business.
The Bottom Line
The CRS report identifies congressional intent as "the ultimate touchstone" of preemption analysis, meaning Congress retains authority to resolve the statutory dispute by expressly authorizing such suits, expressly preempting them, or accepting the judiciary's resolution. The report also notes that legislation limiting EPA's greenhouse gas authority could undermine the Clean Air Act-based preemption arguments the energy companies are advancing in court.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article