The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Yes—cities and states have sued fossil-fuel companies, but filing a case does not mean the government can win or collect damages. The claims and court outcomes vary by state, and no nationwide rule had settled the question as of October 4, 2026. The U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments on October 5 in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Court had not yet ruled.
What the Supreme Court is considering in the Boulder case
Boulder County and the City of Boulder brought state-law claims against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. They allege local harms from climate change and say the companies deceived the public about fossil fuels’ contribution to it. The allegations have not been established as liability or an award of damages.
The Colorado Supreme Court concluded in May 2025 that federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims and sent the case back for further proceedings. The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision; the Court agreed to do so on February 23, 2026.
The Supreme Court’s questions are whether federal law precludes state-law claims for injuries allegedly caused by interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions, and whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case. As of October 4, 2026, argument was scheduled for the following day, the first day of the Court’s new term. No decision was available.
#1 Best Overall
Why the questions matter
- Federal-law preclusion: The companies argue that federal law prevents the state-law claims from proceeding. The Court’s answer could affect whether claims like Boulder’s may continue, but the case is not itself a trial over whether the companies caused particular harms or owe a particular amount.
- Jurisdiction: The Court is also considering whether it has authority to hear this appeal. A ruling about that authority would be distinct from a decision on the underlying claims.
- Further proceedings: Even if the claims are allowed to proceed, questions such as whether the plaintiffs can prove their claims and what relief, if any, is available would remain for later proceedings.
How recent court decisions differ
These cases address different legal questions under different state laws and procedural rules. A ruling about where a case is heard or whether a defendant is properly before a court does not decide whether that defendant is liable.
| Proceeding | Decision or reported status | What it did—and did not—decide |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland local-government claims | On March 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed dismissals of claims by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County. | The court held that federal law displaced or preempted the claims and also found that they failed under Maryland common law. It was a ruling on those Maryland claims, not a nationwide rule. The court wrote, “We hold that they may not.” |
| Chicago’s case | On July 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed remand to state court. | The court found the defendants’ federal work too attenuated from Chicago’s claims to support removal under the federal-officer statute at that stage. It addressed the asserted basis for moving the case to federal court, not ultimate liability. |
| California case involving Citgo | In January 2026, the California Court of Appeal reversed an order quashing service on Citgo. | The court found specific personal jurisdiction based on Citgo’s California gasoline-distribution and sales contacts related to the claims. That allowed the case to proceed against Citgo in California; it did not decide whether Citgo was liable. |
| Coordinated California state and local-government proceedings | The Sabin Center reported in April 2026 that the trial court had stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution of Boulder. | This was a reported case status, not a ruling on the merits. The status may have changed since it was reported. |
| New York Climate Change Superfund Act | The U.S. Department of Justice reported that a federal district court held the Act invalid in August 2026. | The reported decision relied on preemption and foreign-affairs grounds. This concerns a state statute, a separate legal route from local-government tort suits. |
Different legal routes governments may pursue
“Climate damages lawsuit” can describe different kinds of claims. The legal route affects what a plaintiff must establish and what questions a court considers; it does not by itself determine the outcome.
Rank #2
State-law claims
The Boulder and Maryland cases involve state-law claims. Such suits may combine common-law theories, including nuisance, with allegations of deception or other claims. The particular claims, injuries and governing state law matter. The Maryland court’s dismissal, for example, relied on both federal-law displacement or preemption and Maryland common law.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Legislation creating a climate-superfund program
A state may also pass a statute seeking payments from energy companies for climate-related costs. That is distinct from a city or county asking a court for relief under state common law. The New York Climate Change Superfund Act faced a separate federal-court challenge: the Justice Department reported in August 2026 that a district court held it invalid on preemption and foreign-affairs grounds. That reported statutory ruling should not be treated as a decision on every local-government lawsuit.
Rank #3
How to read a ruling in one of these cases
The word “won” can obscure what a court actually decided. Check the ruling’s procedural stage and legal question before drawing conclusions about liability.
- Removal or remand: Determines whether a case is moved to federal court or returned to state court. Chicago’s Seventh Circuit decision concerned federal-officer removal.
- Personal jurisdiction: Determines whether a court may exercise authority over a particular defendant. The California ruling concerning Citgo addressed that issue.
- Preemption or displacement: Considers whether federal law displaces or prevents a state-law claim. It is among the issues before the Supreme Court in Boulder and was part of the Maryland court’s basis for dismissal.
- State-law sufficiency: Considers whether the claims satisfy the law of the state where they are brought. The Maryland decision also addressed Maryland common law.
- Liability and damages: Require resolution of the underlying claims and evidence. None of the procedural rulings described above establishes that an oil or gas company owes a government climate damages.
What remains uncertain
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming consideration of Boulder could clarify whether federal law bars state-law claims over alleged injuries from interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions, and whether the Court can hear the case. Until it rules, the Colorado Supreme Court’s preemption decision remains part of the case’s history, not a final nationwide answer. Even a Supreme Court ruling on those questions would need to be read in light of the claims and procedural issue actually before it.
Outcomes elsewhere may still differ because governments bring different claims under different state laws, and courts may be deciding different procedural questions. The Maryland, Chicago and California decisions therefore cannot be collapsed into a single yes-or-no answer about whether governments nationwide can recover climate damages.
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.
