Photo via Washington Examiner

Justice Kagan compares Boulder’s climate lawsuit to ‘big tobacco’ lawsuits

Read the original at Washington Examiner ↗
Cite

Birle, J. (2026, October 5). Justice Kagan compares Boulder’s climate lawsuit to ‘big tobacco’ lawsuits. Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4754328/justice-kagan-compares-boulders-climate-lawsuit-big-tobacco-lawsuits/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Washington Examiner · collected 2026-10-05 · by Jack Birle

Quick Summary

During a Supreme Court hearing on Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, Justice Elena Kagan compared Boulder’s climate lawsuit against oil companies to the lawsuits filed against tobacco companies in the 1990s. The case focuses on whether Boulder’s lawsuit can proceed under state law or is preempted by federal regulations regarding air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Shanmugam, representing Suncor Energy, argued that both the Clean Air Act and constitutional principles preclude the lawsuit from going forward, but Kagan questioned why these cases should not be allowed to proceed similarly to how tobacco lawsuits were permitted decades ago.
Written by AI on 2026-10-05, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

The Supreme Court opened its new term on Monday by hearing arguments in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, a landmark case that could determine whether states and local governments can sue oil and gas companies for climate change damages. The case, which began in 2018 when Boulder County sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, accuses these companies of contributing to climate-related harms through their fossil fuel operations. The lawsuit aims to hold the companies financially responsible for local climate impacts using state tort laws.

If the Supreme Court allows such lawsuits, it could set a precedent for similar cases across the nation, potentially affecting industries that emit carbon and leading to increased costs for consumers due to higher legal liabilities. Conversely, if the court rules against Boulder County, it would limit states' ability to use their courts for addressing national policy issues like climate change through tort law, thereby protecting manufacturers from an expanding patchwork of lawsuits based on complex environmental problems.

Written for “Supreme Court Climate Case” on 2026-10-31, grounded in this article and the 35 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Supreme Court Climate Case
Environment · 36 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 6% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 12 of 56 claims Outlet record 70/100
The Straits Times
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 6 of 19 claims Outlet record 66/100
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this Hedges 2 of 34 claims Outlet record 70/100
NPR
Hedges 8 of 52 claims Outlet record 60/100
NBC News
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 7 of 33 claims Outlet record 60/100
Washington Examiner
Hedges 9 of 22 claims Outlet record 70/100
Washington Examiner
Hedges 7 of 40 claims Outlet record 70/100
Reason
Hedges 2 of 10 claims Outlet record 67/100
The Guardian
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 5 of 36 claims Outlet record 66/100
Washington Examiner
Hedges 2 of 20 claims Outlet record 70/100
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
18
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
6%
1 of 18 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
70/100
Washington Examiner's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
36
Environment
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-10-05 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Washington Examiner · 3814 article(s) · 7 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 7 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Jack Birle
34 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 As same-day voters go to the polls for the midterm elections next week, the Supreme Court will hear a major religious liberty case over a Colorado universal preschool program with implications beyond the Centennial State.
🔮 A trio of cases involving property rights and personal freedoms set to be argued this term illustrates the role of the Supreme Court as the last line of defense for people fighting what they see as government overreach.
🔮 The Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases over the legality of sweeping “assault weapons” bans later this year, and the local governments at the center of the lawsuits are urging the high court this week to let them ban the firearms they claim are responsible for the “most tragic and frightening crimes.”
🔮 The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a loss on its emergency docket on Wednesday, declining to lift a lower court’s block on a new regulation for federal prisons that would stop providing inmates with transgender surgeries and procedures.
🔮 The high court announced in an order list that because they lacked a quorum in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter, the lower court’s ruling would be affirmed as if the justices never took up the case, the same way that a deadlock at the Supreme Court would affirm a lower court’s ruling.
🔮 The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a challenge to a federal law barring the distilling of alcohol at home, weighing whether it oversteps the federal government’s powers.
🔮 Justice Samuel Alito began his 22nd Supreme Court term last week, but even as he insists he will remain on the bench, speculation has grown over whether it could be his final one on the high court.
🔮 The high court ruled 7-2 to halt a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that would have forced the FCC to issue a final ruling on a revised rule allowing political parties and joint fundraising committees to access the same, more favorable television advertisement rates that are typically reserved for political candidates.
🔮 A lower federal court had ordered discovery into whether DOGE is subject to FOIA, but the Trump administration has argued the “sweeping, intrusive discovery” would effectively give the watchdog the documents it wants through the request before the court could even determine if it is subject to the public records request.
🔮 A female high school wrestler in Washington urged the Supreme Court earlier this week to intervene in a lawsuit over the state’s laws allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, as the high court could issue another key ruling about transgender sports policies months after its landmark June decision.
Also by Jack Birle
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 34 articles by Jack Birle →

Topics

Boulder Constitution Suncor the Clean Air Act the Supreme Court

Subjects

Boulder GPE · 6× Kagan PERSON · 5× Shanmugam PERSON · 4× the Supreme Court ORG · 4× Suncor ORG · 3× Congress ORG · 2× Kavanaugh PERSON · 2× Colorado GPE · 1× Elena Kagan PERSON · 1× Suncor Energy v. ORG · 1×

Narrative

“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel because we’ve said this multiple times, and Congress presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and doing Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this Court’s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise,” Kavanaugh said.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-10-05
🔮 The case is expected to have sweeping ramifications for similar lawsuits that climate activists and Democrat-led jurisdictions have attempted to bring against oil companies, either broadly allowing them to continue or barring them as a matter of federal law.
2026-10-05 · Washington Examiner
Justice Kagan compares Boulder’s climate lawsuit to ‘big tobacco’ lawsuits · assertive framing

Claims (18 extracted, 1 hedged)

Justice Elena Kagan likened Boulder, Colorado’s lawsuits against oil companies for alleged climate change damages to the litany of lawsuits filed against “big tobacco” in the 1990s, as the Supreme Court considered Monday whether to allow Boulder’s landmark lawsuit to proceed. asserted
lawsuit → liken → 1990s
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County over whether the lawsuit is preempted by federal law or not permissible under the Constitution, or if it can proceed to trial in state court. asserted
it → hear → court
The case is expected to have sweeping ramifications for similar lawsuits that climate activists and Democrat-led jurisdictions have attempted to bring against oil companies, either broadly allowing them to continue or barring them as a matter of federal law. asserted
them → expect → law
During Monday’s oral arguments, Kagan questioned Suncor’s lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam, over what prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from going forward, whereas major lawsuits against “big tobacco” and opioid makers were allowed to proceed on what she said were seemingly similar claims. “In multiple respects, this suit appears to be based on the old 1990s tobacco suits that were brought by states and local governments, basically saying that big tobacco had made representations, misrepresentations, which had caused people to to overuse the product, causing harm to those governments,” Kagan said. uncertain
Kagan → question → governments
“I suppose the opioid litigation more recently follows the same model. asserted
litigation → suppose → model
So, if this is Chapter 3, were Chapters 1 and 2 also preempted?” asserted
Chapters → preempt → ?
Kagan added in her question to Shanmugam. asserted
Kagan → add → Shanmugam
Shanmugam rejected that Boulder’s lawsuit was similar to big tobacco lawsuits, saying it is not a new chapter but rather a “different book.” asserted
it → reject → lawsuits
The lawyer for Suncor highlighted differences between the two lawsuits, to which Kagan responded by claiming that she was “waiting to see the distinction,” noting that “this complaint talks a lot about misrepresentations” made by the oil companies. asserted
complaint → highlight → companies
Justice Brett Kavanaugh later followed up on Kagan’s question, asking why Shanmugam did not just assert that the Clean Air Act prevents states and counties from bringing forward lawsuits about air pollution, rather than attempting to make an additional constitutional argument. asserted
Act → follow → argument
“I thought the answer was that this Court has consistently said that air and water pollution are different in our federal enclaves,” Kavanaugh said. asserted
Kavanaugh → think → enclaves
“Why are you resisting that?” asserted
you → resist → that
Shanmugam had argued throughout the hearing that Boulder’s lawsuit should be dismissed both because the Clean Air Act gives the federal government jurisdiction over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and because the Constitution does not allow states to regulate matters beyond their borders. asserted
states → argue → borders
Shanmugam heavily emphasized the constitutional argument, leading to pushback from the justices who believed the Clean Air Act was likely the stronger argument. asserted
Act → emphasize → justices
“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel because we’ve said this multiple times, and Congress presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and doing Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this Court’s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise,” Kavanaugh said. asserted
Kavanaugh → have → pollution
The high court appeared split on whether to allow Boulder’s lawsuit to move forward, but a majority appeared open to striking down the lawsuit as preempted by the Clean Air Act. asserted
majority → appear → Act
Because Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case, an eight-person bench will decide the case for the Supreme Court, leaving open the possibility of a rare 4-4 deadlock. asserted
bench → recuse → deadlock
The Suncor case was the first the Supreme Court heard in its new term, and the justices are expected to issue a ruling as soon as early 2027. asserted
justices → hear → 2027
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support