1 Trending: Christa Pike Shows It’s Time To Bring Back Firing Squads

2 Trending: The Jack Smith Operation Shows Lawfare Will Only Get Worse

3 Trending: Abdul El-Sayed Refused To Condemn The Islamic Terror Regime That Persecuted My Family Members

4 Trending: Why Eric Cantor Going To Head Big Pharma Is The Swampiest Move Ever

SCOTUS Tackles Colorado’s Climate Lawfare In Kickoff To 2026 Term

Past SCOTUS decisions ‘make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law,’ said Justice Kavanaugh.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its 2026 term on Monday with a major case involving the left’s climate lawfare against fossil fuel producers.

The justices heard arguments in Suncor v. Boulder, 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’ activities are contributing to “climate change” and that such a phenomenon is harming Boulder residents.

Suncor attorney Kannon Shanmugam argued that the Constitution prevents “the application of state law to certain inherently federal areas” and that federal — not state — law “governs interstate pollution claims.” He additionally contended that the Constitution’s “prohibition on extraterritorial regulation precludes a state from extending its law beyond its borders to regulate global conduct with global effects” and that the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) “preempts any effort by one state to impose its law on emissions originating in others.”

“If Boulder’s 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,” Shanmugam said.

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 “some situations” in which a person who engages in conduct in one state that’s harmful to someone in another state can be sued under the latter’s laws. Shanmugam replied that there are but said that this case “goes further than any of those [types of] cases.”

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 “a 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.”

In her line of questioning, Justice Elena Kagan told Shanmugam that, in her view, one thing complicating the case is that he “keep[s] switching back and forth between [his]........

© The Federalist