Oct 7, 2026 · 25 min
Boulder asks the Supreme Court to confront Big Oil accountability
Big Oil Runs to Trump’s Supreme Court to Escape Climate Lawsuits
The case tests whether states can seek damages for climate harms while conservative justices narrow federal environmental authority.
- 1Boulder links flooding, fires, drought, and other Colorado harms to its case against ExxonMobil and Suncor.
- 2The companies argue federal law preempts state litigation, raising questions about who can regulate climate pollution.
- 3Samuel Alito’s recusal and public defense of the Court sharpen concerns about judicial ethics and fossil-fuel influence.
Don't miss
The hosts connect Alito’s recusal, oil-and-gas ties, and public comments to the Supreme Court’s handling of Big Oil’s climate case.
The brief
Katie Phang joins Brian Tyler Cohen to examine Boulder’s lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor, which seeks accountability for climate-related damages the city says it has suffered.
Flooding, fires, drought, and other Colorado harms anchor Boulder’s standing argument: the city says fossil-fuel promotion contributed to damage for which companies should help pay.
The companies argue federal law preempts state litigation, creating a tension the hosts see as consequential: limiting federal climate regulation while blocking state accountability.
Samuel Alito’s recusal becomes a second controversy, as the hosts discuss his ties to the oil and gas world, his Court commentary, and the stakes of a decisive ruling.
Alito’s book-tour interviews prompt a broader critique of judicial grievance, media self-promotion, and his unapologetic defense of Dobbs amid complaints about criticism of the Court.