Examining Suncor v. Boulder

The Supreme Court is set to hear Suncor v. Boulder, a case that might significantly influence the ability of state and local governments to safeguard residents against tortious corporate behavior. This case could determine whether governments across the U.S. can hold major oil and gas companies accountable for concealing their long-standing knowledge that fossil fuel use contributes to severe weather conditions.

Communities nationwide suffer enormous expenses from battling fires, floods, droughts, and heat waves, as climate change leads to extensive public health crises. These impacts disproportionately affect children and vulnerable groups who lack adequate protection.

Oil Companies’ Arguments

In the case, ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy challenge a Colorado Supreme Court decision permitting Boulder’s lawsuit to advance. They claim immunity under the federal Clean Air Act, arguing against standing trial for actions that contribute to climate change and misleading the public.

Excerpts from a brief by former EPA officials, including those of both Republican and Democratic administrations, highlight the lack of merit in the oil companies’ arguments.

These officials assert that Exxon and Suncor point to no provisions in the Clean Air Act that nullify Boulder’s claims, because such language is nonexistent. Boulder aims for compensation for local harm caused by knowingly deceptive practices, not regulatory changes to emissions or production.

Implications for Boulder and Beyond

If the Supreme Court sides with Exxon and Suncor, concerns revolve around potential disruption to the fossil fuel market—a speculative and fear-based argument according to critics. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry seeks to avoid accountability while posting record profits, burdening American families.

The Supreme Court itself questions its jurisdiction before Colorado courts issue a final judgment. Boulder residents deserve their legal opportunity against companies responsible for harming communities.

The Clean Air Act’s Purpose

The act protects Americans from pollution; it doesn’t shield fossil fuel entities from accountability or restrict states from counteracting corporate deception. It authorizes the government to set carbon emission limits but doesn’t prevent states’ legal actions that align with emission reduction indirectly.

Current federal actions suggest complexity in interpretation. The administration argues against the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases, as shown by repealing 2024 limits on coal and gas plant pollution.

Congress members supporting Exxon and Suncor promote legislation granting oil companies exceptional legal protection, an action reflecting the federal law’s non-interference in Boulder’s claims.

Conclusion

The Clean Air Act fundamentally aims to protect citizens from pollution, not shield companies from legal responsibility. The Supreme Court should ensure communities like Boulder have the opportunity to seek justice in the courts.

Gina McCarthy and Avi Garbow served as EPA climate adviser and general counsel, respectively. Their insights derive from environmental policy experience.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material is not to be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.