Alito recuses from Supreme Court climate case days before argument, citing no reason

Seven days before the Supreme Court was set to hear one of the most consequential climate cases in years, Justice Samuel Alito quietly stepped aside — reversing a position he had held for months and offering no explanation for the change.

The court's clerk sent lawyers in the case a letter dated September 28 containing just one sentence: 'Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case.' No explanation was given, and the Supreme Court spokeswoman had not responded to requests for comment by deadline, according to NBC News.

The case, Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, is scheduled for oral argument on October 5 — the first day the justices return from their summer break. It asks whether Boulder, Colorado, may sue ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy under state law for damages caused by climate change, or whether federal law and constitutional separation-of-powers principles block such suits. Dozens of similar lawsuits filed by state and local governments across the country are waiting on the outcome, with billions of dollars in potential damages at stake.

Alito does not own stock in either ExxonMobil or Suncor, the named parties. But his most recent financial disclosure report shows he holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, as well as five other firms in the energy sector, according to NBC News. Those companies face similar climate lawsuits, and advocacy group Consumer Watchdog argued that a broad ruling in the industry's favor — one that could shut down state-court climate suits nationwide — would directly benefit Alito's investments.

As a shareholder, Alito has been warned that climate deception lawsuits pose financial risks to his investments. As a Supreme Court justice, he has been told how Suncor v Boulder can prevent those lawsuits from advancing, removing the risk to his investments.— Alexandra Nagy, organizing director, Consumer Watchdog

The recusal is a stark reversal. Only as recently as May, NBC News was told by a Supreme Court spokeswoman that the court's legal counsel had concluded Alito did not need to step aside because he 'does not have a financial interest in any party' in the case. The court had also said, via a spokeswoman, that there was no need for him to step aside — a position Alito maintained even as left-leaning groups repeatedly called for him to go.

Justice Alito's recusal from Suncor v Boulder is the right decision, and one he should have made from the start.— Alexandra Nagy, organizing director, Consumer Watchdog

The recusal is not without precedent for Alito. When the court declined in 2023 to take up an earlier appeal in the same Colorado litigation, Alito stepped aside — a recusal the court later described as 'inadvertent.' He also did not participate in the court's 2025 rejection of a similar appeal from Hawaii, which involved ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, according to USA Today.

With Alito out, eight justices will hear the case. The court's 6-3 conservative supermajority becomes a 5-3 split, raising the possibility of a 4-4 tie. A deadlocked court would leave the oil companies' appeal unsuccessful and allow Boulder's lawsuit to move forward, though the broader legal questions surrounding state courts' authority to hear such cases would remain unsettled across the country, according to NBC News.

The outcome is not straightforward even without Alito. CNN reported that the court has often divided in preemption cases — which turn on whether federal law overrides state law — in ways that do not follow traditional conservative-liberal lines, even as the court has repeatedly ruled against environmental interests in recent years. The oil and gas industry, backed by the Trump administration, is hoping for a broad ruling that would shut down state-court climate suits across the country.

Boulder and its county filed suit in 2018, alleging that ExxonMobil and Suncor broke state law by deceiving the public about the environmental consequences of fossil fuels and contending that the companies should bear some of the costs the community has faced as a result of climate change. The companies deny the allegations and argue that local governments cannot use state laws to address a global environmental issue.

The lack of any explanation for the recusal drew criticism from court-transparency advocates. Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, said justices should be required to explain such decisions.

Is Justice Alito stepping aside because his clerks belatedly found a connection between this case and the companies whose shares he owns? Or is this the rare instance where a justice believes that open questions about his impartiality demand recusal?— Gabe Roth, executive director, Fix the Court

Some conservatives have separately called for liberal Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case over a chapter on climate change that was included in, and later removed from, a reference manual for judges. Kagan wrote a brief foreword to the manual and told lawmakers she never read the chapter in question, according to NBC News.

Why it matters — The Supreme Court's ruling could determine whether dozens of state and local climate lawsuits — seeking billions in damages from fossil-fuel companies — can proceed at all, making Alito's recusal and the possibility of a deadlocked court a pivotal development for climate litigation nationwide.

Sources differ on Whether Alito's 2023 recusal in the earlier Colorado appeal was intentional: The court said in May 2023 that Alito 'inadvertently recused' in the earlier Colorado case. (nbcnews.com) vs Alito also did not participate in the court's 2025 rejection of a similar Hawaii appeal involving ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 — companies in which he holds stock. (usatoday.com)

Reported by theguardian.com, nbcnews.com, nytimes.com, cnn.com, usatoday.com