Big Oil Attempts to Divert Attention from Climate Deception, Central in Supreme Court Suncor v. Boulder Case

WASHINGTON (October 5, 2026)- The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments today in Suncor v. Boulder, a case in which Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil are challenging the authority of Colorado courts to hear claims about the companies' climate deception.

Justices probed the petitioners' arguments of federal preemption and questioned whether the Supreme Court's consideration is premature before the case is heard on its merits in Colorado.

The oral arguments also highlighted the potential implications of granting federal preemption in this case for other litigation alleging corporate misconduct-noting successful past lawsuits over misrepresentation by tobacco and opioids manufacturers of the harmful effects of their products. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and other experts documented ExxonMobil's and Suncor Energy's use of many of the same deceptive strategies employed by the tobacco and lead paint industries in an amicus brief on climate deception supporting the respondents in the case.

Below is a statement by Kathy Mulvey, Fossil Fuel Accountability program director at UCS.

"Today's oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil's desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry's campaign of deception from being heard in court. ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy's efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder's lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions.

"This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country. So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority-a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder's.

"Communities deserve to have their day in court. The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card."

Many previous rulings, including from this Supreme Court, have affirmed state courts as the appropriate venue for cases against fossil fuel corporations over climate damages and fraud. Last week, the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court announced Justice Samuel Alito-whose direct ownership of oil stocks and close relationship with Suncor investor Paul Singer led to his previous recusal from considering a petition related to Boulder's climate lawsuit-would "not continue to participate" in the Suncor v. Boulder case.

The Supreme Court's consideration of this case comes amid a coordinated effort supported by the Trump administration to eliminate states' and communities' ability to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the climate crisis, particularly through the courts. In April, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and U.S. Representative Harriet Hageman introduced a bill to grant sweeping immunity to Big Oil, with similar laws connected to right-wing operative Leonard Leo passing in five states earlier this year. Industry-aligned state attorneys general also successfully pressured for removal of the climate science chapter from a manual designed to educate federal judges on scientific issues. The Department of Justice sued states considering or pursuing lawsuits against fossil fuel companies and sought to strike down or pre-empt science-backed state Climate Superfund bills.

Additional UCS Resources:

• "Decades of Deceit" report on fossil fuel companies' coordinated climate disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1950s