Big Oil Gets Its Day at the Supreme Court, and the Justices Look Divided

The Supreme Court heard Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County on Monday, the first argument of the new term, and the reporting from the courtroom describes a Court that did not tip its hand. Justice Samuel Alito sat out, so eight justices heard the case. Kannon Shanmugam, arguing for ExxonMobil and Suncor, told the Court that letting Boulder's suit proceed would let local governments set national and international energy policy through jury awards. Kevin Russell, for Boulder, answered that states have long provided tort remedies for injuries inside their borders even when the conduct that caused them happened elsewhere. A lawyer for the Trump administration, which backs the companies, argued that states should not fill a gap left by federal law.

According to a science-news account of the argument by Eos, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded firm in support of the companies, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared likely to side with Boulder. Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts were harder to read. Other accounts report that Jackson said the case is still at an early stage, that Sotomayor questioned whether the Court should be deciding the question before Colorado's courts do, and that Barrett pressed the companies on how a federal savings clause fits their argument. The Court itself asked the parties in February to brief whether it has jurisdiction over the case at all, so a ruling could turn on that threshold question and never reach the climate claims.

What happens next depends on how the Court splits. A decision is expected by the end of June. A 4-4 tie would leave Colorado's ruling in place without setting a national rule, and nearly sixty similar suits by states and cities are waiting on the answer. Reading a Court by its questions is a guess, not a count.

Notice the pattern: the companies are not arguing that they did nothing. They are arguing about which room the question may be asked in, and Monday's argument was about the door.

---

Sources: Eos (AGU), "Supreme Court Opens New Term with Major Climate Case" (Oct 5, 2026), argument report; BizPac Review, "Supreme Court split on making oil companies pay for climate change, oral arguments suggest" (Oct 5, 2026), for justices' questions; Colorado Newsline, "Boulder, fossil-fuel companies face off at the Supreme Court in high-stakes climate case" (Oct 5, 2026); Reuters via Business Insurance, "US Supreme Court weighs bid by oil companies to avoid climate lawsuit" (Oct 5, 2026), case background; Columbia Law School Sabin Center, "Supreme Court agrees to hear fossil fuel companies' appeal in Boulder climate case but asks for briefing on threshold jurisdiction questions" (Feb 24, 2026).