Oct 5, 2026 · 19 min
Boulder’s climate case tests the Supreme Court’s fault lines
Is This Samuel Alito’s Swan Song?
The case could determine whether local governments can pursue fossil-fuel companies over climate harms while exposing the Court’s uncertain recusal rules and possible political transition.
- 1Boulder’s lawsuit asks whether fossil-fuel companies can face claims over climate-related harms under theories shaped by opioid and tobacco litigation.
- 2The Court’s ad hoc recusal practices could produce a 4–4 decision, leaving the case alive without resolving its broader legal questions.
- 3Reports that Samuel Alito may retire after the next term add political stakes to an already consequential Supreme Court docket.
Don't miss
Leah Litman explains how a 4–4 Supreme Court split could leave Boulder’s lawsuit standing without resolving its broader legal theory.
The brief
Jane Coaston and law professor Leah Litman examine Boulder’s lawsuit against major oil companies, asking whether climate-related harms can support litigation modeled partly on opioid and tobacco cases.
The legal fight is unusually consequential because the companies have struggled to identify a clear theory for stopping the case, while its path could influence claims involving other diffuse harms.
Litman also describes the Supreme Court’s largely ad hoc recusal process and explains how a 4–4 split would affect Boulder’s case without settling the underlying legal questions.
The conversation turns to reports that Samuel Alito may retire after the next term, linking the Court’s immediate docket to the political consequences of a potential vacancy.
The episode’s central tension is whether procedural uncertainty—over jurisdiction, recusals, and future proceedings—will shape the climate case as much as its substantive claims.