THE ALASKA STORY
Oct. 5, 2026 – Alaska is siding with oil companies in a Supreme Court case scheduled for argument Monday, a case that could determine whether local governments can use state law to demand payment for damage they attribute to global climate change.
The case, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, puts a major North Slope producer before the justices: ExxonMobil, which is challenging the Colorado lawsuit alongside Suncor.
Alaska joined Alabama, West Virginia, and 23 other states in a May 21 brief supporting the companies. The states argue that lawsuits over worldwide emissions threaten their authority to make their own decisions about energy production and environmental protection.
Their central objection is that one state’s courts should not use local law to impose energy policy on the rest of the country. Alaska’s legal representative listed on the brief is Cori Mills, identified at the time as acting attorney general.
Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued in 2018, alleging that the companies knowingly contributed to climate change through fossil fuel production and sales while misleading the public about the risks.
The governments seek money for alleged local harms, including flooding, wildfire risks, and damage to public property. Their surviving claims include public and private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. They are not seeking an injunction halting oil production.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that federal law did not preempt those claims, allowing the litigation to proceed without deciding whether the companies were liable.
Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that harms attributed to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions belong under federal law. They contend that damages imposed by state courts could effectively become a carbon tax, allowing individual localities to influence national energy policy through litigation.
The Trump administration supports the companies, and the Supreme Court granted the solicitor general time to participate in Monday’s argument.
Boulder counters that its lawsuit seeks compensation for local injuries under traditional state tort law. Its attorneys argue that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law governing greenhouse gas emissions without eliminating state remedies.
The case is relevant to Alaska’s economic interests even though the underlying dispute is in Colorado. Liability imposed elsewhere could affect a company with major investments in Alaska. Any resulting effects on North Slope investment or state revenue would be indirect, however; the Court is not deciding Alaska’s taxes, leases, or permits.
Alaska also has its own history of climate damages litigation.
In 2008, the Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina sued energy companies, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. They alleged that greenhouse gas emissions contributed to warming and the loss of protective sea ice, exposing the coastal community to destructive storms and erosion.
The Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of Kivalina’s federal common-law nuisance claim in 2012, holding that the Clean Air Act displaced that federal remedy even when plaintiffs sought damages.
Kivalina’s federal claim and Boulder’s state-law claims raise different legal questions. In the Kivalina case, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the accompanying state claims.
A ruling allowing Boulder’s claims to proceed could leave more room for similar state-law cases seeking compensation for alleged climate-related property damage. It would not revive Kivalina’s old lawsuit or guarantee recovery for any Alaska community. Plaintiffs would still face questions of causation, damages, and the requirements of applicable state law.
A broad ruling for the companies could instead foreclose or substantially restrict that route, with consequences for dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide.
The justices also must decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear this appeal before a final state-court judgment. A decision on that threshold issue could leave the broader preemption dispute unresolved.
Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself, leaving eight justices to consider the case. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June 2027.
