The U.S. Supreme Court will open its 2026 through 2027 term Monday with oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, one of the most consequential energy cases in recent years.

The eventual ruling could help determine the success or failure of President Donald Trump’s American Energy Dominance agenda. At issue is whether Boulder County can use Colorado law to pursue claims involving interstate emissions and conduct beyond the state’s borders.

Former Attorney General William Barr argued in a Wall Street Journal guest piece that Boulder County should not be permitted to dictate national energy policy from a Colorado courtroom.

Speaking in Texas this week, Barr challenged the foundation of the county’s argument. He said the case claims “interstate emissions have always been subject to regulation by the state. That’s not true.”

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

Barr also rejected the notion that Colorado can target companies for conduct occurring elsewhere. “if Colorado doesn’t like what ExxonMobil is doing … they cannot sue ExxonMobil under their law for activities in Texas. That’s basic … and the plaintiffs’ theory ignores it.”

The federal government has long held primacy over air pollution regulation under the Clean Air Act. Similar cases brought by different plaintiffs using the same left wing law firms have been dismissed by courts around the country during the past half decade.

The Boulder dispute is not the latest case in the broader climate lawfare campaign. Middlesex County in New Jersey agreed to serve as the figurehead for another case in that campaign on Sept. 30.

The campaign seeks to burden industry defendants with tens of millions of dollars in litigation expenses. Its design makes the legal process itself a form of punishment, regardless of whether plaintiffs ultimately win judgments.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

WATCH:

George Mason law professor Todd Zywicki described the litigation during a recent webinar. “The bottom line in this case is whether it’s … a public nuisance theory, whether it’s a consumer protection theory, what it really is an effort through litigation, backed by deep pocketed billionaires and a bunch of 1%ers, to force their preferred lifestyle on the rest of the world.”

The litigation as lawfare rather than environmental stewardship. It argues that money consumed by litigation is money that cannot be spent on drilling, refining, or keeping power and fuel prices affordable.

Courts, regulatory agencies, and the Justice Department have repeatedly ruled during administrations of both parties that national climate policy must be handled by the federal government. That principle places nationwide regulation beyond the reach of any single state courtroom.

Barr made the jurisdictional point elsewhere in September, saying no state can simply “plop itself down in the middle of this turf and start making decisions about relative liability and relative contribution,” when emissions and energy production cross borders.

American courts are designed to resolve disputes between opposing parties. They are not equipped to weigh Brazilian deforestation, Chinese coal, and Texas oil production before awarding Boulder County money for alleged damages.

Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, offered a similar warning during a recent panel discussion. “If you care about the climate, this is not the kind of answer that is going to be successful … it takes the decision-making process about what to do about this problem away from Congress, away from the federal and state agencies, and into the courts.”

Goldberg continued, “And the courts can’t make decisions based on what’s best for the American people; they’re good at resolving disputes between parties, focusing rules of evidence, but they’re bad at making policy because they can’t look at all the stakeholders.”

The constitutional argument presented is straightforward: States regulate conduct within their borders, but they cannot export their tort law nationwide or seize foreign policy questions assigned to Congress and the president.

The justices should reject Boulder County’s position. Yet Justice Samuel Alito’s recent recusal creates the possibility of a four to four split that could leave the lower court situation intact, with serious consequences for America’s future energy security.

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BoredTrashPanda.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.