Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County on October 5, 2026, and Salazar v. Paramount Global on October 14. The climate case could turn first on the Court’s authority to review the state-court ruling, while the Paramount case concerns who counts as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act.

At a glance: the October cases

Case Argument date Legal issue Potential reach
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County October 5, 2026 Whether federal law preempts state-law climate-damages claims; the Court may first consider its jurisdiction to review the state-court ruling. State and local government climate-damages litigation.
Salazar v. Paramount Global October 14, 2026 Whether “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act covers all goods and services offered by a video provider or only audiovisual goods and services. Privacy claims involving services connected to video providers.

The dates appear on the Supreme Court’s October 2026 argument calendar, amended September 14, 2026. The calendar can change, so check it for updates close to either argument.

What is the Supreme Court climate case about?

How the Boulder case reached the Court

The City and County of Boulder sued Exxon and Suncor in 2018 over climate-related harms. The dispute now drawing national attention concerns whether federal law displaces state-law claims seeking damages for effects associated with interstate and global emissions. The case is one part of a broader landscape of climate suits by state and local governments; the claims and legal theories vary among those cases.

Why the Court may not reach the preemption question

Before deciding whether federal law preempts the claims, the justices may need to determine whether they have jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court decision that allowed the Boulder litigation to proceed in state court. That procedural question could keep the Court from reaching the underlying preemption issue.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself during the week before argument, Axios reported on October 2. The report did not give a reason for the recusal. A decision reaching the federal-preemption issue could affect the ability of state and local governments to pursue climate-related damages claims. Axios also noted possible implications for separate state climate policies, but the available account did not quantify those effects.

What is the Paramount Supreme Court case about?

Salazar v. Paramount Global concerns the meaning of “consumer” in the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). A Supreme Court Case Tracker search-result summary describes the question this way: does the VPPA cover someone who receives any good or service from a video tape service provider, or only someone who receives the provider’s audiovisual goods or services?

The issue is statutory interpretation with potential consequences for privacy claims involving services connected to video providers. The precise scope and practical effects should be treated cautiously: this summary comes from a secondary case-tracker result, not a direct review of the Court’s docket or party briefs.

How the two cases differ

Point of comparison Suncor Salazar
Legal source at issue Federal preemption of state-law claims. Interpretation of the VPPA’s statutory definition of “consumer.”
Type of dispute Climate-related damages claims brought by local governments. Video-service privacy claims.
Procedural question The Court may need to resolve jurisdiction before reaching preemption. The issue identified in the available summary is the statute’s meaning; further procedural detail is not established here.
Potential reach Ability of state and local governments to pursue climate-damages litigation. Which services linked to a video provider may fall within the VPPA’s consumer definition.

The available information does not establish quantified downstream effects for either case. Their arguments are not decisions: the Court may rule narrowly, resolve a threshold issue, or take a different path than the questions highlighted in advance.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

When to follow the arguments and where to find updates

The Supreme Court’s oral-argument explainer says the justices typically hear two arguments per day beginning at 10 a.m. Argument audio is livestreamed and posted later, and transcripts are posted on the afternoon of each argument. The Court explains: “The arguments are an opportunity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties to the case, and for the attorneys to highlight arguments that they view as particularly important.” See the Court’s oral arguments page for listening and transcript information.

Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

One October case to distinguish from the argument calendar

On October 1, the Associated Press reported that the Court had agreed to review a policy denying bond hearings to immigrants and expected to hear the case in the coming months. That newly granted case is not listed on the October argument calendar, so it should not be confused with cases scheduled for October argument unless the Court later updates its calendar.

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.