Boulder's whacky case against climate change going down!

And I thought Chicago's politicos are pond scum. Sorry I mean't toxic waste.

Hey, that's ironic!

Boulder Gives Away Its Climate Game in the Suncor Case

There’s no limiting principle to its suit on harm from CO2.

By The Editorial Board, WSJ

Oct. 6, 2026

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court can be illuminating, and a classic was Monday’s in Suncor v. Boulder County concerning the constitutional limits to states and localities punishing companies for contributing to global warming. As Boulder would have it, there are none.

Boulder sued oil companies in Colorado state court for local climate damage allegedly caused by their global greenhouse gases. Dozens of other states and localities have filed similar suits in state courts, which, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out, could bankrupt the companies.

Yet Kevin Russell, representing Boulder County, argued that the lawsuit is a run-of-the-mill tort. Several Justices sounded skeptical. “Is there anything anomalous in your mind to applying state law here to worldwide conduct?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “No, I don’t think so,” Mr. Russell replied, comparing Boulder’s claims to a product liability lawsuit against an auto maker for a defective car.

This is an odd analogy since the county isn’t arguing that oil is defective. Far from it. Oil is vital to the economy and everyday living, and Boulder County hasn’t sought to ban it. Product liability suits also require plaintiffs to show they have suffered direct harm as a result of a particular defendant’s products. Boulder hasn’t done so.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Mr. Russell, “If you prevail, is there a limiting principle . . . as to whom you can sue?” The Boulder attorney replied, “the question here is not whether anything in the Constitution prohibits this lawsuit.”

Actually, that is the question. The oil companies argue that the lawsuit is barred by the core constitutional principle that states are equal sovereigns but their authority is generally limited to their own territory.

Justice Thomas continued: “So you could just as easily sue large retailers of these products?” Mr. Russell agreed: “I think nothing in the Constitution would prevent that,” adding “when lots of people act together to cause widespread harm, it is not uncommon for multiple different defendants to be potentially liable.”

That means gasoline retailers like Costco could also be sued for alleged climate harms. Ditto manufacturers of petrochemicals and even dairy farmers since cows emit methane. As Justice Kavanaugh said: “Anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this.”

Vermont and New York have passed laws requiring companies to pay reparations for their global greenhouse gas emissions. California lawmakers have proposed letting wildfire victims sue oil companies for damages.

As Kannon Shanmugam, who represented Suncor and Exxon Mobil, put it, “any individual who has suffered the effects of climate change could sue under Boulder’s theory.” Such lawsuits are sure to proliferate unless the Justices make clear that the Constitution doesn’t let state courts regulate climate policy for the rest of the country.