What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Supreme Court should let Boulder’s climate-damages case proceed past its federal-preemption challenge—not because the companies have been found liable, but because a local government should be able to try to prove its state-law claims. The Court has not ruled. As of October 3, 2026, it is scheduled to hear argument on October 5 in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170.
What is Boulder asking the Court to decide?
The dispute is narrower than whether fossil-fuel companies should pay for climate change in general. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether federal law precludes Boulder’s state-law claims and whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal now. Those are separate questions: the jurisdiction issue may determine whether the Court can reach the preemption issue at this stage.
Boulder County and the City of Boulder filed suit against Exxon Mobil Corporation and Suncor entities in Colorado state court in April 2018. Their complaint alleges that the companies’ production, promotion, refining, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels contributed to climate change, and that the companies concealed or misrepresented climate risks. It asserts public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. These remain allegations, not findings of fact.
The plaintiffs seek money damages for past and future local costs to analyze, prepare for, mitigate, and repair climate impacts, including wildfire response, flood control, drought response, and damage to buildings. The Colorado Supreme Court noted that Boulder is not seeking an injunction against oil and gas operations or sales, or an order controlling emissions.
#1 Best Overall
- Read Before You Buy — No Video Output: These adapters support charging and USB 2.0 data transfer, but cannot transmit video signals. Except for standard USB webcams (which use USB data only), they are not compatible with HDMI/DisplayPort cables, video-capable USB-C hubs, or docking stations with video output.
- Convert USB-A Ports to USB-C: Designed to connect USB-C earphones, cables, flash drives, card readers, and other USB-C accessories to standard USB-A ports. Plug-and-play with no drivers or software required.
- Aluminum Alloy Housing: Built with a sturdy aluminum alloy shell that aids in heat dissipation and protects against daily wear and scratches. Designed to maintain a stable and secure connection.
- Compact & Travel-Friendly: The ultra-compact design allows the adapter to stay plugged into your device without blocking adjacent ports or adding bulk, reducing wear and tear on your original USB ports.
- 12-Month Warranty: Backed by a 12-month manufacturer warranty for peace of mind. Designed to meet strict quality control standards for reliable everyday performance.
Why does Boulder call this local accountability?
The county says local governments and taxpayers bear costs associated with climate impacts, and frames its suit as an effort to seek accountability rather than regulate emissions. Its case page identifies heat, wildfire, drought, and poor air quality as local concerns. It also states that Suncor’s Colorado operations supply about 35 percent of the state’s gasoline and diesel demand; that is the county’s figure, not an independently verified market estimate.
The Associated Press reported that climate change was considered a factor in the 2021 Marshall Fire and that the fire’s total damage was estimated at $2 billion. The fire occurred after Boulder filed its 2018 suit; it was not the event that prompted the lawsuit.
Boulder County puts the policy dispute in a direct question: “Who should bear the rising costs of climate impacts on Colorado?” That is the county’s framing, not the question the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve. The Court is considering legal barriers to the claims, not deciding who caused a particular fire or who must pay for it.
Rank #2
- 5-in-1 USB-C Hub: Experience comprehensive connectivity featuring a Power Delivery input, two USB-A 2.0 ports, a USB-A 3.0 port, and an HDMI port. (Note: The USB-C power delivery input port is only for connecting an external wall charger to power your laptop and cannot power peripheral devices.)
- 90W Pass-Through Charging: Achieve optimal charging with 90W pass-through power to your laptop, supported by a total input of 100W, with the hub reserving 10W for operational efficiency. (Note: Wall charger not included.)
- Quick Data Transfers: Accelerate your productivity with rapid data transfers using a high-speed 5Gbps USB 3.0 port and two 480Mbps USB 2.0 ports.
- 4K HDMI Display: Enhance your visual experience with a hub capable of delivering 4K resolution at 30Hz in both mirror and extend modes. Please note that this hub is compatible with MacBook (macOS 12 and newer), Windows 10 and 11, ChromeOS, and laptops equipped with DP Alt Mode and Power Delivery. Note: This device is not compatible with Linux.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (5-in-1, 4K HDMI), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
How do the companies and Boulder frame the legal dispute?
The parties disagree over whether the suit is a permissible claim for local compensation or an effort to impose state-law controls on emissions that cross borders. Their positions also diverge on federal preemption, constitutional limits, and whether this appeal is before the Supreme Court at the right time.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →| Issue | Companies’ position | Boulder’s position |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the remedy | Claims tied to interstate and international emissions would let state tort law reach conduct and emissions beyond state borders, effectively intruding on emissions regulation. | The complaint seeks damages for alleged local harms and deceptive marketing, not an injunction regulating emissions. |
| Federal law | The companies argue that constitutional structure and the Clean Air Act’s federal framework preclude the state-law claims. | The respondents argue that, after federal common law was displaced, this is an ordinary statutory-preemption question and the Clean Air Act does not categorically bar their damages action. |
| Constitutional and interstate concerns | The companies contend that applying one state’s tort law to global emissions would intrude on federal authority over interstate pollution and foreign affairs. | Boulder characterizes the case as a state-law claim for compensation for local injuries, rather than regulation of emissions outside Colorado. |
| Review now | The companies contend that the Supreme Court can review the Colorado ruling now. | Boulder argues that the ruling is interlocutory—it sent the case back for further proceedings rather than finally resolving it—and therefore is not reviewable now. |
These are advocacy positions in the parties’ briefs, not conclusions the Supreme Court has adopted. Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, offered a different industry-side framing to the Associated Press: “The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on earth.” That is an argument about responsibility, not a judicial finding about the defendants’ conduct or the merits of Boulder’s claims.
Why is jurisdiction a real threshold question?
The Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether it has both statutory and Article III jurisdiction. In practical terms, that asks whether federal law authorizes the Court to hear this appeal and whether the case is in a posture the Constitution permits it to decide. Boulder says the Colorado decision was not final because the state court remanded the case for more proceedings. The companies say review is available now.
Rank #3
- Sleek 7-in-1 USB-C Hub: Features an HDMI port, two USB-A 3.0 ports, and a USB-C data port, each providing 5Gbps transfer speeds. It also includes a USB-C PD input port for charging up to 100W and dual SD and TF card slots, all in a compact design.
- Flawless 4K@60Hz Video with HDMI: Delivers exceptional clarity and smoothness with its 4K@60Hz HDMI port, making it ideal for high-definition presentations and entertainment. (Note: Only the HDMI port supports video projection; the USB-C port is for data transfer only.)
- Double Up on Efficiency: The two USB-A 3.0 ports and a USB-C port support a fast 5Gbps data rate, significantly boosting your transfer speeds and improving productivity.
- Fast and Reliable 85W Charging: Offers high-capacity, speedy charging for laptops up to 85W, so you spend less time tethered to an outlet and more time being productive.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (7-in-1), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
This question matters independently of the merits. If the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction, it may not reach whether federal law preempts the claims. The jurisdiction issue is not a prediction that the appeal will be dismissed; it is an open threshold question the Court specifically ordered the parties to address.
The Supreme Court granted review on February 23, 2026. The City of Boulder announced on September 28 that argument is scheduled for Monday, October 5, at 10 a.m. Eastern (8 a.m. Mountain). The Court’s docket records that Justice Samuel Alito will not continue to participate. The Associated Press reports that eight justices will participate and that a tie is possible; that possibility does not establish how the Court will decide the case.
What did Colorado decide—and what did it leave open?
In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court held that federal law did not preempt the pleaded claims at the stage before it and remanded the case. It expressly declined to decide the claims’ ultimate viability on their merits. The ruling therefore did not determine whether Boulder can prove causation, deception, damages, or any other element, and it did not find Exxon or Suncor liable.
Rank #4
- Dual Converters, Infinite Potential：Includes 2× USB C male to USB A female adapters and 2× USB A male to USB C female adapters. Perfect for a wide range of uses—tablets with Bluetooth keyboards, expand USB ports on macbook, and more. Two different converters for all your daily needs
- Next-Level 10Gbps & 3A Charging: No more slow 480Mbps, this usb to usb c adapter has a transfer speed of up to 10Gbps, allowing you to do more transferring in less time. This usb adapter fits both USB A and USB C charger, supporting up to 3A fast charging
- Upgraded Exquisite Craftsmanship: With an aluminum alloy housing and metal connector, the usbc to usb adapter is extremely durable and sturdy. Rigorously tested to withstand more than 10,000 times of plugging and unplugging, ensuring long-lasting performance
- Broad Compatible: The usb c to usb adapter widely supports all USB C/ USB A devices like laptops, tablets, cellphones, car chargers, and phone chargers. Such as compatible with MacBook Pro/Air 2023/2022, Thunderbolt 4/3 Devices,Apple MagSafe Watch 9/8/7/SE/Ultra, iPad Pro 2022/2021, Samsung Galaxy S23/S20/S10, and iPhone 17/16/15 Pro. Plug and play
- Please Note: To reach 10Gbps speed, keep the cable under 3.3 ft. For USB A Male to USB C adapters, try flipping the USB C connector. USB C Male to USB A adapters support bidirectional 10Gbps transfer within 3.3 ft
That boundary matters to the Supreme Court appeal. A ruling that federal law does not bar the case from continuing would remove one legal obstacle; it would not prove the complaint’s allegations or guarantee that Boulder ultimately wins. Further proceedings would still be necessary to resolve the claims.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is at stake beyond Boulder?
A Supreme Court decision that federal law precludes or constrains these claims could affect similar state and local climate suits. A decision allowing Boulder’s claims to proceed past this preemption challenge would leave the case alive, not establish a general finding of liability against fossil-fuel companies. The effect would depend on the Court’s reasoning and the legal issues it actually decides.
The Associated Press quoted an industry representative’s argument that responsibility for climate change is widespread. Boulder’s answer is framed around who should bear particular local costs and whether its allegations can be tested under state law. The Court’s task is more limited than choosing between those policy narratives: it must address its authority to hear this appeal and, if it can, the federal-law question before it.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
- 5-in-1 Connectivity: Equipped with a 4K HDMI port, a 5 Gbps USB-C data port, two 5 Gbps USB-A ports, and a USB C 100W PD-IN port. Note: The USB C 100W PD-IN port supports only charging and does not support data transfer devices such as headphones or speakers.
- Powerful Pass-Through Charging: Supports up to 85W pass-through charging so you can power up your laptop while you use the hub. Note: Pass-through charging requires a charger (not included). Note: To achieve full power for iPad, we recommend using a 45W wall charger.
- Transfer Files in Seconds: Move files to and from your laptop at speeds of up to 5 Gbps via the USB-C and USB-A data ports. Note: The USB C 5Gbps Data port does not support video output.
- HD Display: Connect to the HDMI port to stream or mirror content to an external monitor in resolutions of up to 4K@30Hz. Note: The USB-C ports do not support video output.
- What You Get: Anker 332 USB-C Hub (5-in-1), welcome guide, our worry-free 18-month warranty, and friendly customer service.
Why the Court should not close the courthouse door at the preemption stage
Local accountability is meaningful only if a community can attempt to prove that a defendant’s conduct caused legally cognizable harm and that the law supplies a remedy. Boulder’s complaint asks for damages tied to alleged local costs; it does not ask the Court to set national emissions policy. Treating the suit as an emissions regulation before its claims are tested risks deciding the case by a characterization the plaintiffs dispute.
That position does not require the Court to endorse Boulder’s factual allegations, resolve difficult questions of causation, or declare state tort law unlimited. The companies’ concerns about interstate effects, federal authority, and the Clean Air Act deserve an answer on their legal merits. But the Colorado Supreme Court has not found liability, and a preemption ruling is not a substitute for a merits trial. The sound course is to respect the distinction: decide whether the Court can hear the appeal, assess the asserted federal bar on its actual terms, and avoid turning that threshold review into a judgment that no local claim may be tried.
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.
