Rubbish Check
ABC News Business · 3 October 2026
source“The Supreme Court will hear a major climate change case involving a devastating Colorado wildfire”
R2/ 10
Lightly altered
Rubbish Rating — 1 = base fact, 10 = pure rubbish
12345678910
In short
Rubbish Talk rates ABC News's headline on the Boulder County v. Suncor/ExxonMobil Supreme Court case a 2/10 because the description is accurate but omits that the underlying lawsuit was filed in 2018, three years before the Marshall Fire, and that the Court may dodge the climate question entirely on a jurisdictional technicality.
The Verdict
Lightly altered. The headline is broadly faithful to what the Court is actually hearing, but it leans on the emotional hook of "a devastating Colorado wildfire" for a case that was filed years before that fire occurred and whose central legal fight may never reach the climate-liability merits at all.
What actually happened
The Supreme Court opened its term hearing arguments in a case where Boulder, Colorado sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, alleging the companies violated state law by deceiving the public about their role in climate change. The city and county of Boulder first sued two oil companies in 2018, years before the fire, arguing that Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil had violated state law by deceiving the public about their contributions to climate change and sought unspecified damages to help cover the cost of worsening disasters. Climate change was considered a factor in the 2021 Marshall Fire that destroyed Somauroo's home, after the county's suit was originally filed.
Key facts
- Boulder first sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in 2018, predating the wildfire the headline anchors on.
- The Marshall Fire caused an estimated $2 billion in damage and was the costliest wildfire in Colorado history.
- Only eight of the nine justices will hear the case; Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments after facing calls to step aside over his oil-company stock holdings, raising the possibility of a tie vote.
- The Court is also weighing whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage at all, a question experts call a potential "off-ramp."
- The federal government, backing the oil companies, argues the lawsuits are a backdoor way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and amount to an unconstitutional power grab, while EPA last month repealed its own power-plant emissions rules.
What to watch for
Watch whether the Court takes the jurisdictional "off-ramp" rather than ruling on the climate-liability merits, which would make this far less of a landmark climate decision than the headline implies. Also watch for a 4-4 tie given Alito's recusal, which would leave the lower court's ruling intact without setting national precedent.
About this scoreThe R-Score is Rubbish Talk's editorial opinion on how far a headline's framing sits from what the underlying facts support. It is a judgement about presentation and emphasis, not an allegation that any outlet has acted dishonestly. Every figure we rely on is linked under Receipts so you can check it yourself.
