# Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (cert. granted 23 February 2026) **Full caption:** Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County et al. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. et al. **Docket:** No. 25-170 **Cert granted:** 23 February 2026 **Oral argument:** 5 October 2026 **Decision expected:** by mid-2027 **Plaintiffs' counsel:** [[EarthRights International]] The first climate liability case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits of whether such suits may proceed at all. Its outcome governs the roughly two dozen state and municipal climate deception and adaptation-cost cases documented at [[Climate Accountability Movement]]. ## Procedural History | Date | Step | |---|---| | 2018 | The City and County of Boulder and San Miguel County sue Suncor Energy and [[ExxonMobil]] in Colorado state court for damages tied to fossil-fuel production and sale | | 2018–2024 | Years of removal-and-remand litigation over whether the case belongs in state or federal court — the procedural pattern across the entire climate docket | | May 2025 | The **Colorado Supreme Court** allows the claims to proceed, holding that the Clean Air Act does **not** preempt state-law tort claims | | 23 Feb 2026 | U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari | | 21 May 2026 | Amicus briefs filed by Protect the First Foundation and Neutral Principles raising First Amendment and petitioning-immunity arguments | | 2 Aug 2026 | Further amicus brief from law professor Jonathan H. Adler | | 5 Oct 2026 | Oral argument | ## Questions Presented 1. **Preemption** — "whether federal law precludes state law claims seeking relief for injuries caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate." 2. **Jurisdiction** — whether the Court possesses statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage, which turns on whether the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is a final judgment. **The Court added this question itself**, which is worth noting: it gives the Court a route to dispose of the case without reaching the merits at all. ## The First Amendment Overlay **The questions presented do not include the First Amendment.** This distinction matters and is frequently blurred in coverage: the case was taken on preemption and jurisdiction, and a ruling could resolve it without touching speech doctrine. The speech theory arrives through **amici**. Protect the First Foundation and Neutral Principles, both filing 21 May 2026, argue that the litigation "raises serious First Amendment issues insofar as it seeks to hold companies liable for statements about contested matters of public import." Neutral Principles frames the protected conduct expansively — that companies cannot lose First Amendment protection because they "urged lawmakers to reject an emissions restriction, publicly opposed an international climate agreement or advocated for policies favorable to fossil fuels" — and invokes the [[Noerr-Pennington Doctrine]]: liability cannot be premised on protected petitioning. This is the same argument documented at [[Corporate Free Speech]], and the same one the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected in a different procedural form in 2022. The question is whether it now arrives at a Court more receptive to it — the outcome the 2022 reporting on the corporate-speech strategy predicted. **Recusal.** Justice [[Samuel Alito]] has previously recused from Suncor/Boulder proceedings over holdings conflicts. Whether he participates in the merits decision is itself consequential in a case that may divide closely. ## Why It Matters for the KB The case sits at the intersection of two arcs the vault tracks separately. **As a federalism case,** it belongs with [[West Virginia v. EPA]] (2022) in the sequence narrowing the routes by which climate harms can be addressed. *West Virginia* constrained the **federal regulatory** route via the major questions doctrine; a preemption ruling for the defendants here would close the **state tort** route. Together those would leave essentially only Congress — the one branch reliably unable to act. **As a corporate-speech case,** it is the vehicle the [[Corporate Free Speech]] strategy has been waiting for, even though the Court did not grant on that question. Amici are laying track for a later case even if this one is decided on preemption. > [!note] Update after 5 October 2026 > Argument transcript, questioning patterns, and whether any Justice engaged the First Amendment amici. Decision expected by mid-2027. ## See Also - [[Corporate Free Speech]] — the speech theory the amici are pressing - [[Noerr-Pennington Doctrine]] — the petitioning-immunity argument - [[Climate Accountability Movement]] — the litigation campaign this case governs - [[ExxonMobil]] — co-defendant - [[EarthRights International]] — plaintiffs' counsel - [[Sabin Center for Climate Change Law]] — the case-tracking database - [[Center for Climate Integrity]] — the public-facing campaign - [[West Virginia v. EPA]] — the federal-regulatory counterpart - [[The Climate Denial Machine]] — the underlying conduct - [[Samuel Alito]] — the recusal question