Suncor Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder City

The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Suncor Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) places squarely before the Court one of the most consequential and rapidly evolving areas of litigation: whether state-law tort claims seeking to impose liability on fossil fuel producers for alleged contributions to climate change are preempted by federal law.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that such claims may proceed under state law, reasoning that they neither arise under federal law nor conflict with federal statutory schemes such as the Clean Air Act. That decision reflects a broader trend among state courts allowing climate-related tort claims to survive early jurisdictional challenges, even where the alleged harms are global in scope and implicate federal regulatory interests.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant review—combined with its directive that the parties address Article III jurisdiction—signals a willingness to engage not only with preemption doctrine but also with threshold questions about the proper role of federal courts in adjudicating these disputes. The jurisdictional inquiry may prove significant. If the Court concludes that the claims do not present a justiciable case or controversy, it could dispose of the case without reaching the merits, while still shaping how similar claims are framed in future litigation.

On the merits, the case is likely to turn on competing conceptions of federal preemption. Based on prior briefing, Petitioners will likely argue that federal law occupies the field of emissions regulation and that allowing state-law claims to proceed would create an impermissible patchwork of standards governing inherently interstate and international conduct. Respondents, by contrast, may emphasize the traditional role of state tort law in providing remedies for localized harms and will argue that federal statutes set regulatory floors rather than ceilings.

The Court may also confront the question whether these claims necessarily arise under federal common law, given their focus on global climate change and cross-border emissions. That issue has surfaced in prior climate litigation but remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level. A determination that such claims are inherently federal in nature would have significant implications for removal and jurisdiction, even if the Court ultimately declines to recognize federal causes of action.

The practical stakes are substantial. For energy companies and other defendants, a ruling recognizing broad federal preemption could sharply curtail exposure to state-law liability and consolidate litigation in federal courts. For states and municipalities, a ruling allowing such claims to proceed could open the door to expansive efforts to recover damages or reshape industry practices through tort law. Insurers, investors, and regulated entities across multiple sectors will be closely watching how the Court navigates these issues.

More broadly, the case represents another chapter in the Court’s ongoing effort to delineate the boundary between state authority and federal control in areas of national and international concern. The Court’s reasoning may extend beyond climate litigation, informing preemption analysis in other contexts where state law intersects with comprehensive federal regulatory schemes.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, or Sadie Betting.