Supreme Court weighs local governments' climate change lawsuits against oil and gas companies

Colorado rancher Kathryn Bedell talks about the impact of droughts on her business as activists gather at the Supreme Court for a case about whether oil and gas companies should help pay for damage caused by disasters linked to climate change, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Oct. 5, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By Lindsay Whitehurst and Matthew Daly

Associated Press

The Supreme Court grappled Monday with whether local governments can sue oil and gas companies to help cover costs associated with climate change, an issue with potentially billions of dollars at stake.

Key justices appeared wary about the potential sweep of litigation, but torn over the complex legal interplay of federal and state laws raised by the case.

Officials in Boulder argue their lawsuit is an attempt to hold energy companies Suncor and ExxonMobil accountable for their contributions to climate change.

They say that worsening disasters such as floods and wildfires put a heavy financial burden on local communities, and the industry should bear part of that cost.

Governments from largely blue-leaning areas around the country have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages that could total billions of dollars, part of a wave of legal action worldwide seeking to leverage action through the courts.

“If you prevail, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “How do you think that will work out on the ground?”

A win for the oil and gas companies at the Supreme Court could shut down dozens of similar cases.

Suncor and Exxon argue that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government – not the states – the power to regulate emissions.

They have the support of the Trump administration, which argues the lawsuits are an unconstitutional attempt to regulate planet-warming emissions and impose Colorado’s state law beyond its borders.

But Roberts and other justices raised skeptical questions about why they should bar civil lawsuits in state courts now. The court is also weighing a jurisdictional question that allows it an “off-ramp" to avoid deciding the issues now.

The case was heard without Justice Samuel Alito, who recused himself just a week before arguments after facing calls to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies. That raises the possibility of a tie vote, which would allow the Colorado case to proceed.

The companies asked the justices to reverse a decision from Colorado’s highest court allowing the case to proceed. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, representing the industry, said the Boulder case was attempting to use the courts to decide a public policy issue that is properly up to Congress and other elected officials.

“Climate change is certainly one of the most pressing issues” facing the country, but the lawsuit “is exactly the wrong way to go about” addressing it, he said.

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris said Boulder’s case “egregiously exceeds” the state’s authority. The county essentially declares itself a victim of actions that occurred largely out of state, she said.

But Kevin Russell, an attorney representing Boulder, argued that state lawsuits can address damage in Colorado, regardless where the fossil fuels are produced.

Trump's Republican administration has rolled back environmental regulations, including a move last month by the Environmental Protection Agency to repeal rules that limit emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. States and cities have already sued the Trump administration over the repeal of the power plant rule.

The conservative-majority Supreme Court has been skeptical of environmental regulations in the past, including in a 2022 decision limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

A decision is expected in the coming months.

• Associated Press writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this story.