In Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Clean Air Act and the foreign-affairs doctrine preempt state-law climate claims brought by state and local governments seeking to recover the mounting costs of climate adaptation. Because the Court has held that neither federal common law nor any federal statute affords these plaintiffs a damages remedy, state law is their only avenue; a finding of preemption would close the courthouse door on communities left to absorb costs caused by others.
This Essay argues that the Court should not find preemption. It shows that the Clean Air Act neither expressly nor impliedly preempts these claims but affirmatively preserves them; that the foreign-affairs theory has no limiting principle and has already been rejected by courts; and that damages and locally confined relief lack the extraterritorial reach that alone justifies centralizing authority over emissions. The Essay develops two additional arguments: the implications of the 2026 endangerment-finding rescission, and why, after Loper Bright, courts owe no deference to EPA’s theory of preemption-by-inaction.