Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the climate case Suncor Energy v.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s sudden recusal from the climate case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County has upended expectations, leaving the court with eight justices to hear arguments over whether state governments can sue oil companies for climate-related damages. The decision, announced in a one-sentence letter from Clerk Scott Harris on September 28, 2026, followed months of pressure from environmental groups and watchdogs who highlighted Alito’s financial ties to energy firms like ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.
A Last-Minute Recusal
Alito’s recusal came just days before the Supreme Court’s October 5 oral arguments, a move that stunned observers given his earlier assertions that he had no financial interest in the case. A letter from Harris stated, I am writing to inform the parties that Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case,
offering no explanation. This follows a pattern of Alito’s shifting stances: in 2023, he recused himself from an earlier stage of the litigation but later declined to step aside when the court agreed to hear the broader appeal.
The case centers on whether federal law preempts state tort claims seeking damages for climate change impacts. Boulder County and other local governments argue that oil companies like Suncor and ExxonMobil contributed to climate harms, while the companies contend that federal regulations, not state courts, govern emissions. Alito’s involvement had been contentious, as his 2025 financial disclosures revealed holdings in energy firms that could indirectly benefit from a ruling favoring the oil industry.
The Pressure to Recuse
The group’s organizing director, Alexandra Nagy, criticized the move as the right decision, and one he should have made from the start,
arguing that Alito’s financial interests created a appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Legal and Ethical Implications
Alito’s recusal raises questions about the Supreme Court’s ethics framework. The 2023 code of conduct mandates recusal when a justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
including financial interests in the subject matter in controversy.
While Alito does not hold stock in Suncor or Exxon, his investments in related energy firms have drawn scrutiny. The case also highlights the broader debate over judicial accountability, with critics arguing that the court’s lack of transparency risks eroding public trust.
The potential for a 4-4 split in the court further complicates the case’s outcome. A tie would leave the lower court’s ruling in place without establishing a nationwide precedent, leaving state climate lawsuits in legal limbo. This uncertainty has drawn attention from legal experts and industry stakeholders alike, as the case could reshape the legal landscape for climate liability claims across the country.
The Supreme Court has not yet announced changes to the October 5 oral argument schedule, but Alito’s absence will alter the dynamics of the case. With eight justices, the court faces the possibility of a deadlocked decision, which could delay clarity for thousands of similar lawsuits. Meanwhile, the controversy over Alito’s financial disclosures and recusal process is likely to fuel ongoing debates about judicial ethics and transparency.
The case is a key moment for climate litigation, with implications for how courts balance state and federal authority in addressing environmental harm. As the court prepares to hear arguments, the absence of Justice Alito adds a layer of unpredictability to a case already steeped in legal and political significance.