Opponents of this lawsuit, and of course Exxon and Suncor, argue that it’s misguided, pointless, expensive and a not-so-thinly disguised attempt to regulate emissions. The lawsuit’s stated object is to seek monetary damages to help Boulder city and county pay for the ever-increasing costs of managing climate-change-related challenges and crises. From a recent city press release: “This case seeks to hold these companies responsible for knowingly contributing to climate change while concealing the dangers of their products … (and) aims to ensure that the corporations that caused the harm pay their fair share, rather than shifting the burden to Colorado communities.”

Now the case moves forward to discovery, which involves collecting documents and evidence, deposing witnesses, and more. It will be another year or two before it makes it to a courtroom. Similar actions in other states have been dismissed, but others are moving forward, notably in Hawaii.

It may seem foolish and futile to many people. Because of course who is ultimately responsible for global warming and climate change? “We” are responsible: wealthy, industrialized nations whose energy consumption has contributed the most to the fossil fuel emissions that have warmed the globe and altered our climates. The U.S. is developing cleaner energy sources but our consumption and emissions only seem to increase, and now we’ve elected an administration committed to rolling back every environmental protection regulation as fast as it can. I still feel strongly that we have a right and obligation to push back against the power and influence of these corporations. This kind of legal action has played out in other industries such as tobacco, opioids and chemicals. It remains to be seen if the fossil fuel industry can be held to account in the same way. Our relationship and consumption of their products are very different. And they have deep pockets. According to Macrotrends, Exxon’s gross profit for the first quarter of 2025 was $20.224 billion, a 0.78% increase year-over-year, while Suncor Energy (as reported by Rigzone) is also seeing rising net profits and product sales. Most likely both companies will benefit from President Trump’s big, beautiful tax cuts currently being voted on in Congress.

Colorado is one of the fastest-warming states in the U.S. — according to the lawsuit, “since 1983, average temperatures in Colorado have risen 2 degrees and are projected to rise another 2.5 to 5 degrees by 2050.” What will our state, country and the earth look like by the time this case is presented to a jury? It can be tempting to give into despair. Let’s keep fighting.

Diane Schwemm, parksidediane@gmail.com

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states.

The bold moves made by the city and county underscore the need for novel approaches to the federal government’s passivity when it comes to environmental regulation and to its overreach when it comes to civil rights. By challenging the absence of corporate accountability and testing the limits of the traditional rules regarding who has standing to use the legal system to protect the rights of the people, Boulder city and county governments are drawing needed attention to the potential national impact of local initiatives. While the specific questions raised by this lawsuit are of great importance, given the steady erosion of both our environment and the regulations intended to protect it, I believe the more foundational issues concern who has standing to use the legal system to protect the rights of the people. These issues are also central to current threats to civil rights and the balance of power.

We must not forget that there are actually four sources of checks and balances: the president, Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. In the current context, the states may be the most potent check on the power of the three branches of the federal government.

While many of us recoil at referring to the 10th Amendment (and to the states’ rights arguments it supports more generally) due to its historical use to justify slavery, segregation, abortion restrictions and so on, that was not its original purpose. Indeed, slavery was already incorporated into the Constitution itself by the time this amendment was passed. Although later used to justify slavery, the 10th Amendment’s original purpose was to protect the states and the people against exactly what is happening now: overreach by the Federal government as a whole.

History could not be clearer about the potential power of the states.

Remember, it took a Constitutional amendment to override the presumed authority of the states to literally enslave people. However, we must also remember that the 14th Amendment prohibited states from violating the rights of their residents; it did not diminish their ability to protect such rights. Given the tendency of the current national government to ignore, limit and abrogate some of the other rights previously protected by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment — the last one in the Bill of Rights — may also be among our last lines of defense against authoritarianism.

Fortunately, many states are stepping up and filing lawsuits challenging policies and practices that violate our constitutional rights. In fact, lawsuits filed by states against the Trump Administration are so numerous that not even Google could come up with a single number, with estimates ranging from 156 to over 220. Here in Colorado, Attorney General Phil Weiser has filed multiple suits against the Trump Administration, including one over its withholding of funds for public schools. California Governor Gavin Newsom is challenging the Trump Administration’s use of emergency powers to enact tariffs.

That said, what does the 10th Amendment and the example set by the city and county of Boulder mean for those of us eager to stop the MAGA agenda? It means we have to widen the focus of our political attention and involvement. It means that the state-level elections to be held in 2026 are absolutely critical to the maintenance of our democracy. While we may be hoping for Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, we need a backup plan as well. Specifically, we need to elect governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state and members of state legislatures who are not afraid to challenge the federal government or the president.

When our rights are being attacked by all three branches of the federal government, national issues become state issues.

Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com