The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 23 agreed to take an appeal by oil companies that seek to halt climate-related city and state lawsuits against them.

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado, but many states, such as California and Hawaii, and local governments, such as Chicago and Baltimore, have filed suits against energy companies, arguing that their products contribute to “climate change.” In some suits, they also allege that the companies have misrepresented these risks.

The court granted the petition in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County in an unsigned order. The court did not explain its decision. There were no recorded dissents.

Exxon Mobil Corp. is also a co-petitioner. The City of Boulder is a co-respondent.

Boulder alleges that the oil companies misled the public about the risk of fossil fuels to the climate.

The oil companies counter that state law doesn’t allow lawsuits to target such a worldwide issue as “climate change.”

The state-level trial court denied the companies’ motion to dismiss the Boulder lawsuit. A divided Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.

The majority of the state’s high court acknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents, which found that claims for relief for injuries alleged to have been caused by interstate pollution are exclusively governed by federal law. However, that court held that because Congress passed the federal Clean Air Act, state law was allowed to regulate interstate emissions, the companies’ petition said.

“There are few, if any, more consequential questions pending in the lower courts concerning the relationship between state and federal law,” the petition said, adding that the lawsuit belongs in federal court.

“Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country.”

The federal government filed a brief supporting the companies’ position.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said that if the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is allowed to stand, “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”

The decision is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and the provisions of the Clean Air Act “because it conflicts with the decision of a court of appeals on a frequently recurring issue of exceptional importance,” she said.

In Executive Order 14260, President Donald Trump criticized state and local policies that seek to “regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities” by imposing barriers to interstate and international trade, subjecting energy producers to excessive fines.

In the April 2025 order, Trump directed the Department of Justice to take action to stop civil actions and the enforcement of state laws that claim to address “climate change,” “environmental justice,” “greenhouse gas” emissions, or “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) initiatives.

ESG is a set of standards that is used to measure an organization’s societal and environmental impact. The ESG movement began two decades ago with a U.N. initiative, outlined in a 2004 paper called “Who Cares Wins,” aimed at getting private companies in line with the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.

Attorneys for Boulder argued in a brief that the litigation should remain in state court.

“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” the brief reads.

An oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the newly granted case.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Feb. 23, 2026, in The Epoch Times.