{"id":2676999,"date":"2026-10-06T08:24:59","date_gmt":"2026-10-06T12:24:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-tackles-colorados-climate-lawfare-in-kickoff-to-2026-term\/"},"modified":"2026-10-06T08:26:15","modified_gmt":"2026-10-06T12:26:15","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-tackles-colorados-climate-lawfare-in-kickoff-to-2026-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-tackles-colorados-climate-lawfare-in-kickoff-to-2026-term\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Tackles Colorado&#8217;s Climate Lawfare To Start 2026 Term"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-tackles-colorados-climate-lawfare-in-kickoff-to-2026-term%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2676999&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Teh U.S. Supreme Court began its 2026 term by hearing a important case involving climate lawfare, specifically the lawsuit Boulder, Colorado, filed against suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil. Boulder claims the oil companies&#8217; activities contribute to climate change and seek damages. Suncor&#8217;s lawyer argued that federal law preempts state efforts, asserting that the Constitution limits state regulation of interstate pollution and that the Clean Air Act supersedes Boulder\u2019s claims. Justices debated whether such local lawsuits could lead to widespread liability, with concerns about their scope and constitutional boundaries. Several justices, including Kagan and Roberts, questioned the case&#8217;s timing and potential implications, with Roberts indicating the suit might be an attempt to reduce emissions indirectly. Boulder\u2019s attorney acknowledged the possibility of targeting other defendants if the case proceeds, prompting concerns over the expansive nature of the lawsuit. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the case might be premature for Supreme Court review, while Kavanaugh emphasized federal law\u2019s authority over interstate pollution, referencing precedent to support his stance.Justice Alito recused himself; a ruling is expected later in the term. The case raises significant constitutional and policy questions about state authority, federal supremacy, and the potential for broad litigation effects in climate law.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its 2026 term on Monday with a major case involving the left\u2019s climate lawfare against fossil fuel producers.<\/p>\n<p>The justices heard <a href=\"https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/program\/public-affairs-event\/justices-hear-climate-lawsuit-case\/686079\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">arguments<\/a> in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/suncor-energy-inc-v-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Suncor v. Boulder<\/a><\/em>, which deals with the lawsuit Boulder, Colorado, brought against Suncor Energy companies and the Exxon Mobil Corporation. The locality is seeking monetary damages based on claims that the oil giants\u2019 activities are contributing to \u201cclimate change\u201d and that such a phenomenon is harming Boulder residents.<\/p>\n<p>Suncor attorney Kannon Shanmugam <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_transcripts\/2026\/25-170_3e04.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">argued<\/a> that the Constitution prevents \u201cthe application of state law to certain inherently federal areas\u201d and that federal \u2014 not state \u2014 law \u201cgoverns interstate pollution claims.\u201d He additionally contended that the Constitution\u2019s \u201cprohibition on extraterritorial regulation precludes a state from extending its law beyond its borders to regulate global conduct with global effects\u201d and that the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) \u201cpreempts any effort by one state to impose its law on emissions originating in others.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf Boulder\u2019s claims are allowed to go forward, some 90,000 municipalities across the country will have the ability to make national and international energy policy by asking juries to impose catastrophic damages on selected fossil-fuel producers. Put simply, that is not the constitutional scheme that the founders adopted,\u201d Shanmugam said. <\/p>\n<p>Following a question from Justice Clarence Thomas on whether SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear the case, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Shanmugam whether he believes that there are \u201csome situations\u201d in which a person who engages in conduct in one state that\u2019s harmful to someone in another state can be sued under the latter\u2019s laws. Shanmugam replied that there are but said that this case \u201cgoes further than any of those [types of] cases.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The chief justice later pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who argued in support of Suncor, on what makes the Suncor case different from \u201ca lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states and all that, and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In her line of questioning, Justice Elena Kagan told Shanmugam that, in her view, one thing complicating the case is that he \u201ckeep[s] switching back and forth between [his] two theories\u201d about which level of government controls air and water regulation and the \u201cbroad principles of \u2026 who can do what extraterritorially with respect to any subject.\u201d In arguing that he fell back on the former when pressed on the latter, she asked Shanmugam whether it\u2019s the case that his \u201cextraterritorial theory cannot stand alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cLike my children, I love both of our theories equally, Justice Kagan,\u201d Shanmugam said, to which Kagan replied, \u201cIf that\u2019s true \u2026 then you can\u2019t answer questions about the extraterritorial theory by referring to the nature of air and water regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled her belief that the case is too premature for SCOTUS to take up and rule on at this time. <\/p>\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, did not hide his apparent belief that federal law and the Supreme Court\u2019s existing precedents preempt Boulder\u2019s state-based climate suit. Speaking to Shanmugam, he said that past SCOTUS decisions \u201cmake crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat is through and through those four cases,\u201d Kavanaugh said. \u201cWe don\u2019t have to reinvent the wheel because we\u2019ve said this multiple times, and Congress presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and doing the Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this court\u2019s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<blockquote data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<div lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the precedents that support Suncor\u2019s arguments:  <\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs I read them together, [these precedents] make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law. That is through and\u2026 <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/0xO1VpKlSr\">pic.twitter.com\/0xO1VpKlSr<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>\u2014 Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/JCNSeverino\/status\/2107125304170848525?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">October 5, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>Justice Amy Coney Barrett also pressed Suncor\u2019s lawyer on the state-federal dispute at issue in the case.<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<blockquote data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<div lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<p>Justice Barrett on the scope of state authority over interstate pollution:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI do not read either Ouellette or AEP to say they are authorizing states to apply state common law rules or apply their own law otherwise. What I read it to be saying is, if you think of a Venn diagram,\u2026 <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/F8TG0b8OFh\">pic.twitter.com\/F8TG0b8OFh<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>\u2014 Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/WarMachineRR\/status\/2107149436191203649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">October 5, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>On the flip side, Boulder attorney Kevin Russell faced pushback from several of the justices on the far-reaching consequences of the locality\u2019s lawsuit. <\/p>\n<p>Thomas probed Russell on whether there is a \u201climiting principle [as] to whom\u201d Boulder and other localities could sue if SCOTUS were to rule in the county\u2019s favor. In doing so, the senior justice got Russell to effectively concede that there is none under his theory.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo, you could just as easily sue large retailers of these products?\u201d Thomas asked, to which Russell replied, \u201cI think nothing in the Constitution would prevent that.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut nothing in your theory prevents that either, right?\u201d Thomas asked. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cNothing in our theory prevents that. \u2026 When lots of people act together to cause widespread harm, it is not uncommon for multiple different defendants to be liable,\u201d Russell said. <\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/09\/30\/supreme-courts-suncor-case-is-bigger-than-a-climate-policy-dispute\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court\u2019s <em>Suncor<\/em> Case Is \u2018Bigger\u2019 Than A \u2018Climate\u2019 Policy Dispute<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<blockquote data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">Justice Thomas gets Boulder, Colorado\u2019s attorney to admit that the locality\u2019s lawfare against Suncor and Exxon would open up fossil fuel retailers to similar lawfare if SCOTUS were to rule in Boulder\u2019s favor. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/vR2tk4Ozsx\">pic.twitter.com\/vR2tk4Ozsx<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/ShawnFleetwood\/status\/2107148140050776305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">October 5, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>The troubling expansiveness of Boulder\u2019s theory is also a point Roberts picked up on in his exchange with Russell. The chief justice theorized that, should SCOTUS side with Boulder, there would be a bevy of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies mimicking the locality\u2019s claims. In pressing Russell on the \u201cpractical\u201d implications of that, he further <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/WarMachineRR\/status\/2107135859791167973?s=20\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">observed<\/a> that \u201cthere\u2019s always going to be greenhouse gas emissions affecting every state\u201d and that \u201cit is not as if anything other than your litigation is going to address it.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<blockquote data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<div lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<p>Chief Justice Roberts presses Colorado\u2019s lawyer on the true intentions behind Boulder\u2019s suit:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIsn\u2019t your suit an attempt to evade those decisions\u2026it\u2019s an effort to reduce emissions.\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/fInRcd4dmi\">pic.twitter.com\/fInRcd4dmi<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>\u2014 Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/JCNSeverino\/status\/2107137521255882969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">October 5, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>Justice Neil Gorsuch also later probed Russell on whether there is \u201canything anomalous \u2026 to applying state law \u2026 to worldwide conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Kavanaugh reemphasized his apparent belief that regulation of interstate air and water pollution is a matter of federal law and again noted the Supreme Court\u2019s \u201cwall of precedent\u201d seemingly barring Boulder\u2019s state tort claims. He further pressed Russell on his nonsensical response to questioning from Barrett that Colorado has the authority to pursue such state-based climate suits but can\u2019t pass a law that attempts to accomplish similar objectives. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo why is the state tort suit different than the state law? I\u2019m just not understanding that,\u201d Kavanaugh said. <\/p>\n<p>A familiar face missing from Monday\u2019s arguments was Justice Samuel Alito, who <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-170\/425819\/20260928133032324_Letter%20to%20Counsel%20in%20No.%2025-170.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">announced<\/a> his recusal from the case last week. The justice did not provide a reason for the decision, although some theorize it\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/08\/13\/propaganda-medias-latest-hit-job-against-justice-alito-is-a-total-joke\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">related<\/a> to his investments in fossil fuel entities not involved in the <em>Suncor<\/em> case. <\/p>\n<p>A decision in <em>Suncor v. Boulder<\/em> is not expected until later in the court\u2019s 2026 term. <\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court begins 2026 term with climate lawsuit case<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":539,"featured_media":2677000,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Exxon-Mobil.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[86775,86773,6024,86774,6994],"class_list":["post-2676999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-2026term","tag-climatelaw","tag-colorado","tag-legalbattle","tag-scotus"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Exxon-Mobil.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2676999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2676999"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2676999\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2677003,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2676999\/revisions\/2677003"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2677000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2676999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2676999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2676999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}