Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will not take part in a major climate damages lawsuit against oil companies, a last-minute decision announced with no public explanation before October arguments.
Breitbart News reported that the Supreme Court announced Monday that Justice Samuel Alito “will not continue to participate” in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.
Clerk of the Court Scott Harris conveyed the decision in a letter to counsel. The letter gave no reason for the move.
Oral arguments are set for Oct. 5, the first day of the Court’s new term. The announcement came one week before those arguments.
The case grows out of a lawsuit by Boulder County and other Colorado local governments against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. The localities seek damages under state law for the companies’ alleged contributions to climate change. The companies ask the justices whether federal law blocks those claims.
Alito previously stayed out of an earlier Supreme Court decision involving the same companies and the same dispute. When the justices agreed in February to hear the latest appeal, he took part in that decision to grant review.
Monday’s letter does not explain what led him to change course again. The Court has not said whether a financial interest or impartiality concern drove the latest non-participation.
That pattern tracks other recent moments in which Justice Alito sits out major climate damages cases when the record requires it, even as activists keep pressing for broader investigations.
In May, a coalition of 30 organizations asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement. The groups pointed to holdings in oil and gas companies and noted his earlier stay-out followed by participation when the Court took the case.
A Supreme Court spokeswoman told NBC News that Alito had no financial interest in any party to the case. She also said the Court’s legal counsel had advised him that he was not required to recuse himself.
The Court’s code of conduct says a justice should step aside when a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances might question the justice’s impartiality. Financial interest in a party or in the subject of a case is among the listed grounds. Monday’s letter does not apply that language to this Colorado matter.
Readers following Alito’s record will also recall that he has confirmed he will serve another Supreme Court term and rejected outside pressure to leave the bench.
Earlier this year, Alito withdrew shortly before arguments in a separate oil industry case. The Court explained that he held a financial interest in ConocoPhillips. A subsidiary of that company remained a party in a lower court even after it withdrew from the Supreme Court proceedings.
No comparable explanation accompanied the letter in the Boulder County case. The clerk’s note simply stated that Alito will not continue to participate.
The docket is No. 25-170. Suncor Energy Inc. is the named petitioner. The County Commissioners of Boulder County and other Colorado local governments stand on the other side, with ExxonMobil also among the companies sued in the underlying action.
That same steady approach appears in other coverage of how Alito shuts down retirement talk and keeps doing the work of the Court on the cases before it.
Boulder County and the other Colorado localities brought the suit seeking damages under state law. They allege the oil companies contributed to climate change and should pay under those state theories.
Suncor and ExxonMobil ask the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law prevents those state-law claims. That federal-preclusion question is the issue set for argument on Oct. 5.
Alito’s non-participation leaves the remaining justices to hear and decide the case. The Court has not indicated any further change in the argument schedule.
His longer record also includes moments when Alito and Thomas challenge Supreme Court majorities on procedure and safeguards, another reminder that he does not duck hard institutional fights.
The May letter from the 30-organization coalition remains a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Step 1 record does not report any final committee action on that demand. The Court, for its part, has already stated through its spokeswoman that counsel saw no mandatory recusal and that Alito held no financial interest in the parties.
Justices decide for themselves when to step aside. Alito has now done so in this climate damages fight, as he did in the ConocoPhillips matter when a concrete financial tie was present. Local governments still want state-law payouts from energy producers; the companies still say federal law closes that door. The Court will hear the rest of the case without him.
Accountability runs both ways: judges who follow the ethics rules deserve the same good-faith reading that activists demand for every other public official.
