The U.S. Supreme Court is set to open its fall term on Monday with oral arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. It is one of the most closely watched cases on the docket this term, with significant implications for national climate and energy policy.
Backers of the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign and the case have acknowledged the ulterior objective of advancing their goal of setting American energy policy through the courts, rather than Congress. Meanwhile, expert legal, academic, and political voices have criticized the lawsuit, arguing that the case reaches beyond Colorado’s constitutional authority and is an improper use of state tort law.
Here’s What the Experts Are Saying:
Legal Voices
Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (filed an amicus brief in support of the companies on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers)
“If you care about the climate, this is not the kind of answer that is going to be successful. What it does, as we’ve heard the other panelists say, is it takes the decision-making process about what to do about this problem away from Congress, away from the federal and state agencies, and into the courts. And the courts can’t make decisions based on what’s best for the American people, they’re good at resolving disputes between parties, focusing rules of evidence, but they’re bad at making policy because they can’t look at all the stakeholders.” – Washington Legal Foundation; September 29, 2026 [9:57]
Bill Barr, former U.S. Attorney General
“The United States has repeatedly said under all administrations, this is something that can only sensibly and equitably be dealt with on a worldwide basis through international efforts. And so, a state cannot just sort of plop itself down in the middle of this turf and start making decisions about relative liability and relative contribution.” – meet the future; September 16, 2026 [8:37]
Mike Hilgers, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska
“Our founders understood sovereign states to have no right to interfere in the government of another. In Chief Justice John Marshall’s framing in 1818’s United States v. Bevans, “the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory.” In other words, states have authority only up to the edge of their borders and not beyond. But the Colorado Supreme Court permitted Boulder’s suit to proceed on a legal theory that could extend to emissions produced anywhere in the world.” – Washington Post; September 21, 2026
Megan Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
“So on the one hand, if Boulder is regulating the out of state production and consumption of fossil fuels because of the greenhouse gases that are emitted, then what they’re doing is unconstitutionally extra territorial.” – GMU Scalia Law, September 11, 2026 [17:52]
John G. Malcolm, VP of the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law
“Given the profound domestic, international, and national security implications and potential destabilizing and deleterious impact, it is no exaggeration to say that the Suncor case will decide whether Congress and the administration or Boulder, Colorado (or, even worse, a smattering of local juries comprised of lay individuals from deep-blue jurisdictions throughout the country) gets to set our national energy policy.” – Advancing American Freedom; September 15, 2026
Michael Toth, Research Director of the Civitas Institute
“These cases will cripple American and Western businesses. Suncor is a Canadian company. It’s not just American companies, but these are Western companies. They will cripple them because they will make their products prohibitively expensive. As one of the advocates for Boulder has explained. This is a carbon tax, so this will be a tax on production for any company that’s hit with one of these lawsuits.” – Washington Legal Foundation; September 29, 2026 [47:43]
O.H. Skinner, Executive Director of Alliance for Consumers
“Fundamentally, what these nuisance lawsuits are, is they identify a wrong, that is in this instance global climate change, and then they’re asking for a court order for seeing defendants to remedy the effects of climate change. Kinda wherever they arise. And that kind of a push is opening doors to questions about the structure of our constitutional system that I don’t think have been frequently brought up before.” – The Federalist Society; September 29, 2026 [1:25]
Academic
Donald Kochan, law professor and Executive Director of George Mason University’s Law and Economics Center
“If people in Boulder want to sit in the freeze in the dark because they don’t want to use fossil fuels and they like living that way, I think it’s a dumb decision, but it’s protected for them under the Constitution. Right. What Boulder County can’t do is tell the rest of us that we also have to sit in the dark and freeze and not be able to cook because they’re going to make it too expensive for us to have gas stoves and gas heat, right?” — GMU Scalia Law, September 11, 2026 [40:16]
Todd Zywicki, law professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law
“That’s what the bottom line in this case is whether it’s…a public nuisance theory, whether it’s a consumer protection theory, what it really is an effort through litigation, backed by deep pocketed billionaires and a bunch of 1 percenters, to force their preferred lifestyle on the whole rest of the world.” – GMU Scalia Law, September 11, 2026 [46:18]
Dr. Pinar Cebi Wilber, Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University
“These lawsuits obviously are impacting the businesses as you said. The risk of litigation, for example there are a few studies that are trying to monetize and put a number on a direct impact on investment, and they’re saying that the litigation risk is associated with a decrease in investment by 3 to 7 percent. The decrease in capital, decrease in investment obviously is an indication of lower production, lower job opportunities, increased prices.” – meet the future; September 16, 2026 [1:09:11]
Saikrishna Prakash, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law
“This struck me as odd and implausible that Boulder can regulate nationwide, that Colorado can regulate nationwide, because it implies that New York City, Pensacola, Florida, Anchorage, Alaska, you know Boulder, Idaho, they can regulate the entire United States because of the effects that are felt within their jurisdictions. And then they can go further and regulate the entire world. And of course, this argument will be used by other nations and their subdivisions to regulate activities in the United States, right? So, Russia could regulate activities in Moscow, Idaho, right? And France could regulate activities in Paris, Texas.” – GMU Scalia Law, September 11, 2026 [10:11]
Political
Matthew Rice, Solicitor General of Tennessee
“Millions of Tennesseans drive to work every morning in gas-powered cars; households in Wisconsin cook with natural gas; cattle ranches in Texas emit methane. Boulder claims that Colorado law can regulate all of it. That turns our constitutional structure on its head.” – National Review; May 21, 2026
Bud Albright, previous Assistant U.S. Attorney and Undersecretary of Energy
“The Boulder lawsuit, like many similar cases filed around the country, seeks to impose potentially massive financial liability on energy producers based on projections of future climate-related harms. But those projections depend on assumptions about future emissions, future temperatures and future economic impacts.” – The Hill; July 9, 2026
Bob Beauprez, Former United States Representative (CO-7) and Former Republican Nominee for Colorado Governor
“How many Colorado cities and counties filed briefs in support of Boulder more than eight years after the case was first introduced? Zero. That is a striking fact, given the effort from environmental groups and Boulder itself to portray the lawsuit as a defense of Colorado communities. Boulder’s lawsuit has become a national cause célèbre for climate activists.” – Washington Examiner; September 25, 2026
Other Experts
Dr. Benjamin Zycher, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
“The Boulder litigation against the fossil energy producers is an obvious money grab aimed at an industry unpopular politically. But the protection of unpopular political minorities against the whims and passions of the political majority of the moment is the central objective of the American constitutional system of federalism, checks and balances, and the separation of powers.”—National Interest; September 22, 2026
John R. Puri, Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at National Review
“To the energy companies and their allies, Boulder’s lawsuit is an attempted end run around the legislative process. After failing to enact climate legislation in Congress, activists are trying to force their desired policies on the country through the courts. This is not the first time a subnational government has sued over greenhouse gases.” – National Review; September 17, 2026
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute
“The Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder County to pursue a cockamamie climate-change lawsuit against several energy companies, alleging various state tort-law claims. The idea is that, by producing greenhouse gases that cause climate change, the defendants are harming Boulder County. Of course, this is all “preempted” (trumped) by federal regulations.“ – The Manhattan Institute; May 19, 2026
Scott Bomboy, Editor in Chief of the National Constitution Center
“One measure of Suncor v. Boulder’s importance is that since the justices accepted the case on February 23, 2026, more than 70 “friend of the court” or amicus briefs have been filed. Among those filing briefs were House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Senator Ted Cruz, numerous legal scholars, interest groups, tribal nations, states and local governments.” – National Constitution Center; August 6, 2026
Jay Rogers, financial professional and expert witness in securities and fiduciary litigation
“Allowing every county that experiences a flood or a dry summer to sue energy producers under its own tort theories would produce a patchwork of conflicting verdicts. State juries would become de facto national climate regulators without the expertise, the democratic mandate, or the constitutional authority to set national policy.” – Washington Examiner; September 4, 2026
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute
“You have people that are writing amici briefs that are of counsel, representing the state of Hawaii, that are of counsel of Sher Edling, the largest law firm in the nation that was really this boutique law firm created in I believe in 2017 to do this very thing, to go out and sue energy companies. You have someone that’s of counsel, a guy named Michael Burger, who is writing multiple chapters, at least four references of him in this fourth edition reference manual on science at the Federal Judicial Center, published again December 31 with the National Academies, co-branded, it has a copyright of the Federal Judicial Center on it. Four references of Michael Burger in there, and he is, it’s not noted anywhere that he is of counsel at Sherl Edling, that has active lawsuits against energy companies, including Suncor v. Boulder.” – Daily Caller Live: The New Age of American Power [13:47]
Liam Donovan, America Leads Alliance
“You don’t have to have a JD to understand that states cannot and should not be regulating emissions of molecules that can’t possibly stop at state lines. So I think there’s a huge opportunity and reason for optimism when it comes to the judicial side of this.” – Daily Caller Live: The New Age of American Power [26:35]
Bottom Line: Boulder built its case as a local dispute over local injuries. But with oral arguments in the Supreme Court just days away, legal, academic, and political experts have called out the suit’s true colors: a billionaire activist-backed attempt – with little support from other Colorado local governments – to reshape energy policy through the courts instead of through Congress.
