DailyDrop.

The Supreme Court opened its 2026–27 term on Monday with Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170), the first of the dozens of state and local climate suits to be argued before the justices. Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in Colorado state court, claiming under state tort law, including public nuisance and trespass, that the companies sold fossil fuels while misleading the public about the risks and should help pay for the heat, wildfire and flood costs that followed. Colorado's Supreme Court let the case go forward. The companies, backed by the federal government, argue that climate change is a national and global problem that only federal law can govern, and that the Clean Air Act and federal common law leave no room for a state jury to put what amounts to a price on emissions. Justice Samuel Alito did not take part, and the Court gave no reason. That leaves eight justices and opens the door to a 4–4 split, which would leave Colorado's ruling in place without setting a national rule. The stakes reach well beyond Colorado. Similar suits by states and cities, from Honolulu to California, are moving through state courts; a ruling for the companies would end most of them, while a loss would push them toward discovery, where internal company records become evidence. Boulder's case reached the justices before any trial, which is why jurisdiction became the first fight.

Justice Clarence Thomas opened by asking whether the Court even has jurisdiction over a state case that has not reached a final judgment, and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson pressed the same point with the companies' lawyer. Justice Amy Coney Barrett framed the core question: "Everybody agrees that state tort law is a form of regulation." Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the suit was "an attempt to evade" the Court's earlier rulings on emissions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that suits like Boulder's could "bankrupt" defendants and called it a federal law matter. Justice Elena Kagan likened the case to the tobacco and opioid litigation and told the companies' counsel, "I'm waiting to see the distinction." Several justices also resisted the broader claim that the Constitution's structure alone forbids such suits. Besides a tie, the Court could dismiss the case as improvidently granted, saying it should not have taken it. A decision is due by June. The term's first order list, released the same morning, turned away a long list of petitions, including the 'Let's Go Brandon' sweatshirt case and a stack of gun appeals, and added no new cases. The day's second argument, Johnson v. United States Congress, asks whether veterans may challenge the constitutionality of benefits laws in federal district court; a Justice Department lawyer defended the statute in a one-hour argument.