Supreme Court Opens New Term With Climate Liability Case

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision in this case could significantly affect ongoing or future state-level climate change lawsuits in Washington, potentially determining whether federal law preempts claims brought by local jurisdictions against energy companies for climate damages.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court convened its October 2026 term Monday, opening with oral arguments in a case that examines federal preemption of state-level climate change lawsuits. The initial case, *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, considers whether federal law overrides state tort claims brought by Boulder, Colorado, against energy companies. Justice Samuel Alito did not take the bench for the *Suncor* argument. Last week, Justice Alito announced his withdrawal from the case, citing his ownership of energy stocks, though he does not hold shares in Suncor or ExxonMobil. He informed Bloomberg reporter Greg Stohr that he deemed recusal "prudent" despite advice from the court's legal office that it was not legally required. Justice Alito's remarks came in an interview related to the upcoming release of his book, "So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country." Chief Justice John Roberts formally opened the new term. He announced the closing of the October 2025 term and the commencement of the October 2026 term. Attendees in the courtroom included Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, and his parents, Everett and Martha Kavanaugh. Boulder County Commissioners Ashely Stolzmann, Marta Loachamin, and Claire Levy, along with Boulder City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, also attended. They planned to address the press outside the court after arguments. Suncor General Counsel Mike Korenblat and ExxonMobil General Counsel Jeffrey Taylor were also present. The court proceeded with the *Suncor* case as its first argument, maintaining its scheduled order despite Justice Alito’s recusal. Typically, cases with a recused justice are heard second on days with multiple arguments, allowing the non-participating justice to exit during a break. The central question during arguments quickly focused on jurisdiction. Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Kannon Shanmugam, representing Suncor and ExxonMobil, to explain the court’s jurisdiction over a Colorado Supreme Court decision that may not be final. Shanmugam spent most of his allotted time addressing this point. Justice Elena Kagan questioned Shanmugam on his presentation of two potentially conflicting jurisdictional theories. Shanmugam responded, "Like my children, I love both of our theories equally, Justice Kagan." He later elaborated on the merits during the seriatim round of questioning. Shanmugam highlighted the scope of similar lawsuits nationwide, stating that over 60 municipalities have filed approximately three dozen cases seeking billions in damages from oil and gas companies for greenhouse gas emissions. "We need an answer to this question sooner rather than later," he stated. Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general, argued that the U.S. Supreme Court holds jurisdiction, viewing the Colorado Supreme Court’s handling of the case as a self-contained original proceeding. Kevin Russell, representing Boulder, argued that the petitioners had not established the Supreme Court's jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal. Chief Justice Roberts questioned Russell on the potential impact of a ruling favoring Boulder, suggesting it could lead to numerous similar lawsuits across the country. Russell responded that widespread litigation does not inherently create federal preemption. In his rebuttal, Shanmugam reiterated concerns about the breadth of Boulder's legal theory. He concluded by stating, "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." After arguments concluded, Justice Alito entered the courtroom and took his seat for the subsequent argument concerning veterans’ benefits.