Yes—cities, counties, and states have filed lawsuits seeking climate-related damages or other relief from fossil-fuel companies, often under state law. Whether those claims can proceed or ultimately win is unresolved nationwide. As of October 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments the next day in the Boulder County case. The Court had not issued a ruling.
What the Supreme Court is considering in the Boulder case
Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, alleging that the companies’ conduct—including alleged deception about fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change—caused local harms. They seek relief under state law. The allegations are not findings that the companies are liable.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Supreme Court granted review on February 23, 2026. The questions before it are whether federal law precludes state-law claims for injuries allegedly caused by interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions, and whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case. Argument was scheduled for October 5, 2026, the first day of the Court’s new term; that date had not yet arrived as of October 4.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteThe Colorado Supreme Court had concluded in May 2025 that federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims and sent the case back for further proceedings. The companies then sought Supreme Court review. The pending appeal concerns legal barriers and the Court’s jurisdiction—not a final determination of liability or damages.
#1 Best Overall
Why “can sue” and “can win” are different questions
A government can file a case and ask a court for relief without having established that the defendants are legally responsible. Several distinct questions can arise along the way:
- Where can the case be heard? Removal and jurisdiction rulings decide whether a case may proceed in a particular court or against a particular defendant. They do not resolve the underlying allegations.
- Can the legal claims proceed? Preemption or displacement can bar state-law claims where federal law governs the subject. A court may also decide that the claims do not satisfy the relevant state’s common-law or statutory requirements.
- Is a defendant liable, and for what? That merits question is separate. Even a ruling allowing a case to continue does not establish responsibility or the amount of any damages.
The cases below involve different legal vehicles, state laws, and procedural questions, so their outcomes are not a single nationwide rule.
Rank #2
How recent decisions differ
| Case or proceeding | Decision or reported status | What it establishes—and what it does not |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland local-government claims | On March 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed dismissals of claims brought by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County. | The court held that federal law displaced or preempted the claims and also found they failed under Maryland common law. Its decision concerns those claims under Maryland law; it is not a ruling governing every state. |
| Chicago’s case | On July 15, 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed sending the case back to state court. | The court found the defendants’ federal work too attenuated from Chicago’s claims to justify removal under the federal-officer statute at that stage. It decided the asserted basis for removal, not ultimate liability. |
| California case involving Citgo | In January 2026, the California Court of Appeal reversed an order quashing service on personal-jurisdiction grounds. | The court found specific personal jurisdiction proper based on Citgo’s California gasoline-distribution and sales contacts related to the claims. That ruling allows the case to proceed against Citgo in California; it does not decide whether Citgo owes climate damages. |
| California coordinated state and local proceedings | The Sabin Center reported in April 2026 that the trial court had stayed the coordinated proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution of Boulder. | This was a reported procedural status, not a decision on the claims’ merits; the status may change. |
| New York Climate Change Superfund Act | The U.S. Department of Justice reported that a federal district court held the Act invalid in August 2026. | The reported ruling relied on preemption and foreign-affairs grounds and concerns a legislatively created statute, not the same legal path as local-government tort suits. |
Different legal paths governments may use
“Climate damages” cases do not all ask for relief in the same way. A government may bring state common-law claims, such as nuisance or other tort claims; assert consumer-protection or deception claims; or rely on a statute enacted specifically to address climate-related costs. The New York Climate Change Superfund Act dispute is an example of the statutory route, which should not be confused with a city’s or county’s tort lawsuit.
The alleged injury and requested remedy also matter. Governments may claim costs associated with local harms or adaptation and seek monetary or equitable relief. The legal viability of a claim depends on its particular allegations, requested remedy, governing law, defendants, and procedural posture.
Rank #3
What to watch for in the Supreme Court’s decision
The Boulder appeal could address whether federal law blocks state-law claims tied to greenhouse-gas emissions and whether the Court has authority to hear the case. The outcome may affect how the Boulder claims proceed, but it should not be treated automatically as a decision on every government climate lawsuit: the Maryland, Chicago, California, and New York matters involve different claims or legal questions.
For a given case, the key is to identify exactly what the latest court order decided. A decision about removal, personal jurisdiction, or whether federal law preempts a claim answers a different question from whether an oil company is liable for a government’s claimed losses.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
