Skip to main content
Day.News — Local News. Real Community.
COLUMBUS DAY NEWS
Local News. Real Community.
politics
2 min read

Justice Alito Withdraws From Supreme Court Climate Change Case

Justice Samuel Alito will not continue to participate in the Supreme Court case 'Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County,' a significant dispute concerning climate change liability. The Supreme Court clerk announced the withdrawal without providing a specific reason.

09/29/2026 · California edition

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why it matters locally: The outcome of *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County* could significantly influence numerous climate change lawsuits filed by California cities and counties against oil and gas companies, potentially affecting their ability to seek financial accountability for climate-related damages.

WASHINGTON – Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in the upcoming Supreme Court case, *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*. The Court’s clerk, Scott Harris, announced the decision Monday in a letter to the attorneys involved. The case is scheduled for argument on Monday, Oct. 5, the first day of the 2026-27 term. Harris's letter stated, "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate," but did not provide a reason for the decision. *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County* addresses whether state-level tort claims can hold oil and gas companies financially accountable for their contributions to climate change. The case involves officials from the Boulder, Colorado, area. Its outcome could influence similar lawsuits filed across the country. In May, a group of organizations sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Alito's involvement in the case. The letter referenced Alito's previous recusal from a petition brought by the same companies involved in *Suncor Energy*. The organizations stated Alito had "substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies" and suggested his participation would "undermin[e] public confidence in the impartiality of the Court." A Supreme Court spokeswoman told NBC News at the time that Justice Alito did not have a financial interest in any party to the case. She stated legal counsel advised him that recusal was not required. The Supreme Court's code of conduct, issued in November 2023, requires justices to recuse themselves from proceedings where an "unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties." This includes situations where a justice has a financial interest in the subject matter or a party to the proceeding. Justices are not required to provide reasons for recusal. However, they sometimes offer explanations, particularly when recusal stems from prior judicial service on a case. In January, Harris announced Alito's non-participation in *Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana*, a case concerning federal contractor transfers from state to federal court. In that instance, Harris cited Alito's "financial interest in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation for Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company." He also detailed how Alito initially decided against recusal after Burlington was dismissed as a petitioner but later learned the company remained a party in district court.

Related Topics

Editorial Transparency
AI-Generated · Written by National Desk

Article Ratings

Factual
0.0
Likeable
0.0
Bias
0.0
Objective
0.0

How do you feel about this story?

NA

National Desk

Trust 3.198322 articles8,256,373 views75% fact accuracy
View Profile

Sign in to follow this author from their profile.

Discussion (0)

Join the Conversation

Join the conversation

Sign in to share your thoughts, reply to readers, and like comments.

Sign in to comment
Sort by:
0 comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

Trending Now

Trending stories will appear here.

More from California

No other local stories are available right now.

Events & Things to Do

Read section →

Upcoming events will appear here.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Keep Reading

Related Stories

More politics stories from California

politics

Special Counsel Jack Smith Discusses Potential Future Prosecution of Donald Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith discussed his approach to potential future prosecutions involving Donald Trump. Smith emphasized that his decisions would remain independent of political affiliations or the former president's candidacy.

Read Story →
politics

Supreme Court Allows Deportations to Third Countries to Continue

The Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to continue deporting individuals to third countries. The policy involves transferring migrants to nations other than their country of origin or the United States. Justices will further review the legal challenges to these practices.

Read Story →
politics

News Organizations Seek Court Intervention Over White House Access Ban

Three news organizations banned from White House grounds have petitioned a federal court. They seek to block the enforcement of these access restrictions. The request remains active until a final resolution in the case.

Read Story →
politics

U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Global Network Supporting Iran's Military

The United States Treasury Department has announced sanctions against individuals and firms. These actions target a global network that the U.S. states facilitates Iran's military supply chain. The department specified entities in Iran, Turkey, Oman, and China.

Read Story →
politics

AI Companies Sign Agreement on Safety Measures

Major artificial intelligence companies have signed an agreement outlining self-regulatory principles for AI development. The announcement occurred in Washington, D.C., with participation from industry leaders.

Read Story →
politics

Supreme Court Allows Migrant Deportations to Third Countries

The U.S. Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to resume deportations of migrants to countries not specified in their removal orders. The court will hear full arguments on the case at a later date. This decision allows a previous policy to take effect.

Read Story →
Scroll for more stories