Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
No. 25-170 · October Term 2026 · Economic Activity · argument October 5, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Suncor Energy Inc.. Chance of a unanimous ruling 44%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Boulder County and the City of Boulder are suing Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil, alleging that the companies' fossil fuel operations caused climate change-related damages to the county and its residents. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boulder, allowing the state-law claims to proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether federal law prevents these state-law claims from being heard.
- Whether federal law, including the Clean Air Act and federal common law, preempts state-law claims seeking damages for climate change impacts.
- Whether the federal foreign affairs power precludes state courts from adjudicating harms related to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions.
- The Court must determine if it has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case, a threshold question that could resolve the matter without reaching the merits.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THIS COURT HAS STATUTORY AND ARTICLE III JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS CASE. SEPTEMBER 28 , 2026 : JUSTICE ALITO WILL NOT CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 2/23/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Boulder County and the City of Boulder (collectively, "Boulder") sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and three Suncor Energy entities, alleging that the companies' decades-long production, promotion, refining, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels knowingly drove climate change and caused concrete harm to Boulder's property and residents. Boulder further alleges that the defendants compounded this harm by intentionally misleading the public about fossil fuels' role in accelerating climate change. The alleged injuries include flood damage, increased wildfire risk, drought, and physical damage to public buildings and infrastructure—costs Boulder claims it has absorbed and will continue to absorb. To recover those costs, Boulder asserts state common law claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Critically, Boulder seeks only monetary damages—not an injunction against fossil fuel operations or any form of emissions regulation. The defendants argue that these state-law claims are precluded because federal law—specifically the Clean Air Act, the federal common law of interstate pollution, and the federal foreign affairs power—occupies the field and bars state courts from adjudicating harms rooted in interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions. Boulder filed suit in state court; the defendants removed the case to federal court, but after extensive litigation that included appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and two certiorari petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand order and the case returned to the Boulder County District Court, which denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado for extraordinary review under C.A.R. 21, which that court accepted and resolved in Boulder's favor on May 12, 2025.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Economic Activity cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and the proper balance between federal and state power, which could lead him to scrutinize the scope of federal preemption in this area. | 63% Suncor Energy Inc. | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 328 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, and his jurisprudence often favors limiting federal power, which might make him skeptical of broad federal preemption arguments unless explicitly stated in statute. | 66% Suncor Energy Inc. | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 62% Economic Activity · 555 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito will not be participating in this case. | 66% Suncor Energy Inc. | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 67% Economic Activity · 322 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor generally takes a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation and has often been receptive to arguments that protect state and local regulatory authority, which could influence her view on preemption. | 57% Suncor Energy Inc. | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Economic Activity · 264 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often considers the practical implications of legal rulings and has a history of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of statutes, which could be a factor in her analysis of the Clean Air Act's preemptive scope. | 57% Suncor Energy Inc. | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 59% Economic Activity · 249 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often emphasizes federalism and has expressed skepticism about expansive interpretations of federal power, which could lead him to favor state authority unless federal preemption is clearly established. | 66% Suncor Energy Inc. | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 60% Economic Activity · 141 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh has a record of carefully considering the balance between federal and state authority and has often sided with interpretations that limit federal regulatory reach, which could make him inclined to find preemption in this complex area. | 66% Suncor Energy Inc. | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 68% Economic Activity · 123 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often adheres to textualist principles and has shown a willingness to re-examine established precedents, which could lead her to a strict interpretation of federal preemption statutes. | 66% Suncor Energy Inc. | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 65% Economic Activity · 85 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the real-world impact of legal decisions and has shown a willingness to consider broader societal implications, which could influence her perspective on the balance between federal and state interests in climate change litigation. | 57% Suncor Energy Inc. | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 55% Economic Activity · 62 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.