When amicus briefs backing Boulder’s climate lawsuit hit the U.S. Supreme Court this week, they arrived stacked with a sprawling coalition of national activist groups, political leaders, and out-of-state governments.
Colorado, for the most part, did not show up.
Neither of the state’s U.S. senators signed onto the 90-member congressional brief supporting Boulder. No additional Colorado city, town, county or other local government joined the local-government brief filed by ten jurisdictions from elsewhere around the country. And Conservation Colorado, along with the state’s other prominent environmental groups, is nowhere on the docket as organizational amici.
Those absences are especially notable because Colorado institutions did participate on the other side. The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and eight Colorado counties filed a brief supporting the energy companies, arguing that Boulder does not represent the state’s full geographic and economic diversity.
Eight years after filing suit, Boulder has assembled a well-funded national coalition. At home, it’s a different story.
Colorado’s Senators Sit It Out
The congressional brief was led by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal and signed by 88 additional members of Congress – including twelve U.S. senators: Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Dick Durbin, Mazie Hirono, Ben Ray Luján, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders, Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch, Ron Wyden and Whitehouse.
Colorado Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet are not among them.
While four members of Colorado’s House delegation did sign the brief, the absence of Hickenlooper and Bennet is conspicuous considering that senators from states with no direct connection to the litigation urged the Court to let Boulder’s claims proceed.
Out-of-State Governments Fill the “Local” Brief
The pattern repeats in the local-government amicus brief, which draws its support from Chicago, Hoboken, and California’s San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz, plus Hawaii’s Maui County and Honolulu. Not one Colorado jurisdiction.
That is striking because Boulder’s lawsuit has been pending for eight years and could establish a nationally significant precedent for climate litigation against energy producers. Yet, nearly a decade later no additional Colorado city, county or municipality has found it worthwhile to join Boulder and San Miguel County in defending the case.
National municipal organizations filed a separate brief, including the National League of Cities and National Association of Counties. But no Colorado-specific municipal league, county association or council of governments appears by name among the organizations supporting Boulder.
Nine Colorado Local-Government Entities Back the Energy Companies
Colorado local governments did, however, show up on the opposite side. The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado joined Archuleta, Delta, Garfield, Grand, Mesa, Montezuma, Montrose and Rio Blanco counties in a brief arguing Boulder and San Miguel County “do not speak for” the rest of the state.
Their filing lays out what’s at stake for Western Slope communities that depend on energy production for jobs and severance-tax, mineral lease, royalty and property tax revenue on energy infrastructure. These counties have a direct interest in litigation that could restrict production, raise costs or shrink the tax bases on which their communities depend.
Nine Colorado local governments back the energy companies. Zero back Boulder.
Colorado’s Environmental Establishment Is Missing
The absence of Colorado’s major environmental organizations is also notable.
Conservation Colorado describes itself as the state’s largest environmental organization, yet it does not appear on the Supreme Court docket as an organizational amicus. Neither does Western Resource Advocates, a major regional environmental group headquartered in Boulder.
Seven Colorado self-described ranchers filed a separate brief supporting Boulder, with the support of a New York law firm, with one identified as a member of Conservation Colorado’s board.
But Conservation Colorado itself did not sign the ranchers’ brief or file one in its own name.
The contrast with national environmental organizations is difficult to miss. The docket includes briefs from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Earthjustice, the Rockefeller-backed Union of Concerned Scientists, Our Children’s Trust, Public Citizen and other national advocacy groups.
Boulder’s institutional environmental support appears to come predominantly from outside Colorado rather than from the state’s best-known environmental organizations.
Colorado’s AG Weighs In Nearly Alone
Colorado Attorney General and Democratic nominee to be the state’s next Governor, Phil Weiser, did file a brief in support of Boulder. However, the relative lack of support elsewhere in the state makes his intervention all the more pronounced. Apart from Weiser and the four Democratic members of Colorado’s U.S. House delegation, Boulder appears largely alone among Colorado’s major political and civic institutions.
The National Climate Litigation Campaign Fills the Gap
The out-of-state city-and-county brief shows how the national climate litigation campaign has stepped in where Colorado hasn’t.
Its counsel include Sher Edling attorneys Victor Sher, Matthew Edling and Michael Burger. Sher Edling represents numerous state and local governments pursuing climate lawsuits against energy companies, while Burger simultaneously serves as executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Burger also presented to the National Academies committee studying climate-attribution science and its legal applications in November 2024. The National Academies released that committee’s final report in July and listed Burger in the acknowledgements during the development of the so-called objective report. Less than three weeks later, Burger officially appeared as counsel on Sher Edling’s Supreme Court brief supporting Boulder.
Democracy Forward’s appearance on the docket is similarly revealing. Three of its attorneys are listed as counsel for former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones in a brief supporting Boulder.
When reporting connected Democracy Forward – a well-funded progressive legal group – to the first-of-its-kind climate wrongful-death lawsuit in Washington state, the organization went out of its way to insist that it had no involvement in the case. That lawsuit was developed with assistance from the Rockefeller-funded Center for Climate Integrity, which has publicly promoted it as a new model for holding energy companies liable for deaths attributed to extreme weather. A Democracy Forward spokesperson nevertheless maintained that the organization itself was not involved.
Now with their appearance on the Boulder docket, Democracy Forward can no longer portray itself as merely adjacent to the Rockefeller climate campaign targeting American energy.
BOTTOM LINE: Boulder built its case as a local dispute over local injuries. Its own amicus support tells a different story — a well-funded national coalition, and a home state that has largely opted out. Eight years and dozens of national allies later, Boulder still hasn’t convinced its own state to sign on.
