Can Boulder pursue oil companies for climate costs?

Suncor Energy v. Boulder County

Federal jurisdiction · US Supreme Court · No. 25-170 · Argument scheduled

The case, in plain English.

The City of Boulder and Boulder County seek money for damage to public property and the costs of protecting residents from climate impacts. They allege that Suncor and ExxonMobil knowingly contributed to climate change through fossil-fuel production and sales, while misleading the public about the risks. These are allegations, not findings of liability. Their claims include nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy under Colorado law.

Why it matters

The immediate stakes are whether Boulder can continue pursuing compensation. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the companies’ federal-law defence and allowed the claims to proceed; it did not award damages. The US Supreme Court is reviewing that legal barrier, not deciding how much the companies owe. Our assessment: its reasoning could also shape other local governments’ climate lawsuits.

Will the Supreme Court reverse or vacate the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part?

From bet to decision

Place a simulated betCloses 5 Oct 2026, 11:00 AEDT (Sydney)
Your odds are locked when your simulated bet is accepted.
Oral argument5 October 2026
Argument scheduled
Court decisionDate not announced
The betting deadline is not the Court’s decision date.
Bet settlementAfter outcome review
The official outcome is checked against the rules. Winning bets pay out; void bets return your stake.

Read the settlement rules

What informs the forecast?

The model estimates the chance of a petitioner win at 86.5%, based on information recorded before oral argument. A win means the Court reverses or vacates the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part, under the rules below. This does not predict which legal arguments will succeed. Historical model tests do not establish live forecasting accuracy.

Forecast provenance

Model: scotus-m2-logit-audit-corrected. Generated: 2026-09-27T01:50:16Z. Target: petitioner win. Feature snapshot SHA-256: 74ef79e96c671d4d177030c7ccb7eb9128a788ae8fc78573f0bc95526a8902d7.

What could change the view

Jurisdictional reasoning at argument, the treatment of the requested remedies, or a narrow disposition could change the assessment.

Model-derived probabilities are uncertain, not guarantees. Historical backtests do not establish live accuracy. Prices use reciprocal probabilities with no added margin; two-decimal rounding may slightly affect implied totals.

Outcome & resolution rules

YES (petitioner win) means the Supreme Court reverses or vacates the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part, including a grant-vacate-remand or mootness vacatur. NO means affirmance (including an equally divided Court), dismissal as improvidently granted, or other writ dismissal leaving the judgment standing. Settlement or dismissal by agreement, removal from the calendar or vacatur of certiorari is VOID and returns the stake. Modified or unclassified judgments require manual review. This predicts judgment disposition, not whether a particular legal argument succeeds. Resolution follows forecast rules version 2.

The first issued Supreme Court judgment on the lead docket controls; later rehearing changes are ignored. The slip-opinion judgment and official docket are checked independently. Conflicts, modified judgments and unmatched dispositions require manual review, not an assumed result. The selection deadline closes new positions; it is not a deadline for a Court judgment.

Deadline: 5 Oct 2026, 11:00 AEDT (Sydney). Market rule revision 1. Accepted bets retain this version. Only a reviewed official outcome can settle this market.

Forecast rules version 2 defines the model’s outcome categories. The market rule revision above tracks changes to this market’s accepted rules; these are separate version numbers.