The first Monday in October marked the start of a new Supreme Court term, and with it the first round of oral arguments, led by Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. The case tests whether state tort claims brought by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, against energy companies are preempted by federal law.
Before arguments began, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, and his parents, Everett and Martha Kavanaugh, took seats in the guests’ gallery. Three Boulder County commissioners, Ashely Stolzmann, Marta Loachamin, and Claire Levy, and Boulder City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde were also in attendance and planned brief remarks on the plaza afterward. Suncor General Counsel Mike Korenblat and ExxonMobil General Counsel Jeffrey Taylor were present but did not plan to address reporters.
At 10 a.m., the justices took the bench without Justice Samuel Alito. He announced last week that he would not participate in Suncor after advocacy groups urged his recusal because of his ownership of individual energy stocks, though not in the companies involved. In an interview tied to the release of his book, he said it was prudent to step aside, noting the Court’s legal office had advised that recusal was not required.
Some Court watchers had wondered whether the argument order might be reshuffled so the recused case would go second, which is the customary practice that allows a non-participating justice to depart quietly during the break. The Court kept Suncor as the term’s opener.
Chief Justice John Roberts began with formalities, declaring the October 2025 Term closed and convening the October 2026 Term. During bar admissions, one movant departed from the usual script to praise a “fellow Marine,” a flourish that drew no visible enthusiasm from the chief justice. Groups admitted included graduates of the University of the District of Columbia’s David A. Clarke School of Law, where Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke last month, and members of the U.S. House Office of Legislative Counsel, whose work relates to congressional authority discussed during Suncor.
Suncor Energy v. Boulder County centers on jurisdiction
When the chief justice called the case, it quickly became clear that a threshold issue would dominate. The Court added a question about whether it has jurisdiction to review a Colorado Supreme Court decision that may not be final. Justice Clarence Thomas opened by asking Kannon Shanmugam, arguing for Suncor and ExxonMobil, to explain why the Court has jurisdiction. Shanmugam spent nearly all of his initial 20 minutes on that point.
Justice Elena Kagan pressed him on whether he was advancing two potentially conflicting jurisdiction theories and suggested he select one. He demurred with a light quip, which did not blunt her questioning. Only during the seriatim round did Shanmugam address the merits, after a brief pause when the chief justice turned to Justice Thomas, then reflexively to Justice Alito’s vacant chair.
Shanmugam emphasized the breadth of related litigation, noting that more than 60 municipalities have filed about three dozen similar suits seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for climate-related harms. He urged the Court to resolve the preemption question promptly because the cases involve alleged damages in the billions.
Arguing in support of the petitioners, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris contended that the Colorado Supreme Court treated the matter as a self-contained original proceeding, giving the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to review its ruling allowing the suit to proceed.
Representing the city and county, Kevin Russell argued that, whatever the merits, the petitioners had not established the Court’s jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal. Chief Justice Roberts, who had moments earlier suggested to Harris that the matter might resemble other mass torts that proceeded in state courts, expressed skepticism toward Russell’s position. He posited that a ruling for Boulder could prompt copycat filings by municipalities across the country and asked how such a wave would play out in practice.
Russell replied that the potential for numerous suits does not itself create federal preemption, stating there is nothing in the Constitution that treats volume of litigation as a trigger for preemption.
On rebuttal, Shanmugam again warned about the sweep of the theory advanced by Boulder, asserting there would be no clear limit on who could be sued. He suggested that under Boulder’s approach, even personal conduct such as refueling a vehicle could be framed as contributing to global climate change for nuisance purposes. He closed by arguing that disputes over climate policy belong with the political branches, not the courts.
With that, the chief justice submitted the case and the courtroom began to clear. During the transition, Justice Alito entered from the center curtain, taking his seat with a slight smile. He participated fully in the next case on veterans’ benefits, returning to active questioning from the bench.
Later this term, the justices are also expected to hear Supreme Court oral arguments set in immigration and religion cases, adding to a docket that already features closely watched disputes.