What to watch in the Supreme Court's big climate case

• Governments face mounting costs from climate change that litigants link directly to the companies' products.

The big picture: SCOTUS is considering whether federal law blocks damage claims under state laws for the effects of interstate and global emissions.

State of play: It's specifically about litigation against Exxon and Suncor that the city and county of Boulder filed in 2018.

• But dozens of state-court cases are active in California, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and beyond.

• The cases aren't identical. But overall they accuse oil giants of concealing risks or making deceptive statements, and seek damages for climate-related costs.

Here are a few big themes and dynamics ahead of Monday morning:

This is a blockbuster. The decision will be the culmination of an intense, years-long battle (unless it's not, but more on that in a moment).

• There's a high level of organizing, lobbying and advocacy among industry and climate advocates alike around these state cases.
• Industry and allied groups say the wave of cases threatens oil companies' very ability to operate.
• It's a sign that both sides see litigation as a critical battleground on climate. Take a spin through the case docket and you'll see what I mean.

A kicked can is possible. SCOTUS might not decide the question of federal preemption.

• That's because it's also considering whether it even has jurisdiction right now.
• The question turns on whether a Colorado Supreme Court decision to let Boulder's case proceed in state court can be reviewed at this stage.

Trump policies are a new(ish) wrinkle. U.S. and industry briefs argue that addressing an interstate and global topic with these state claims is preempted by federal law and the Constitution.

• But watch whether the White House attempt to repeal key Clean Air Act authority over greenhouse gases is used as a cudgel against federal preemption claims.
• This won't be the main argument — instead, the litigants against oil companies contend these cases are well within the bounds of traditional, longstanding state powers. But it could surface.

There's an important absence on the bench. Justice Samuel Alito this week recused himself from the case.

• "Justice Alito's recusal is likely bad news to the petitioners as he is among the more preemption-friendly justices on the Court," writes environmental law scholar Jonathan Adler.

There could be ripple effects. A ruling in favor of the oil companies could also jeopardize separate state climate policies.

• New York and Vermont have "climate superfund" laws that assess damages against fossil fuel companies to help fund climate adaptation. They're both tied up in court.
• Several states are considering some version of these laws.

Sign up here for Axios' Future of Energy newsletter.