Justice Alito Withdraws From Supreme Court Climate Change Case

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on state-level tort claims against oil and gas companies could set a precedent for similar litigation in Arkansas, potentially affecting the state's energy sector.

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.