Justice Samuel Alito will sit out a major climate damages case against ExxonMobil and Suncor after pressure over energy stocks, raising the risk of a deadlocked Supreme Court.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has determined he will not continue to participate in a high-stakes climate case involving ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, a shift disclosed in a letter to lawyers with no reason given.
NBC News reported the letter, dated Monday, landed as the case heads toward argument next week and after left-leaning groups repeatedly called for him to step aside over oil-company stock holdings.
The underlying fight is a Colorado lawsuit brought by the city and county of Boulder. Local officials want damages from oil companies for the impacts of climate change. ExxonMobil and Suncor are asking the Supreme Court to throw that case out.
Alito does not own stock in ExxonMobil or Suncor. His financial disclosure shows holdings in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, plus five other energy-sector firms. Those companies have faced similar suits and have warned shareholders about the legal risk.
In May, a Supreme Court spokeswoman told reporters Alito had “inadvertently recused” in an earlier Colorado matter. She also said he “does not have a financial interest in any party” in the present case and that the Court’s legal counsel advised “his recusal is not required.”
Alito had previously indicated through the Court that he saw no need to step aside. The new letter reverses that posture without explaining why.
The letter states the decision in plain terms.
In the note sent to counsel, the Court wrote:
"Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case,"
A Court spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for further comment after the letter became public.
Readers following Alito’s tenure will note this is not a retirement story. He has confirmed he will serve another term and rejected pressure to leave the bench.
Left-leaning groups and activists argued companies in Alito’s portfolio could gain if the Court blocks the Boulder-style suits from moving forward in state court. Consumer Watchdog pointed earlier this month to ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 disclosures that flagged risks from climate litigation like the Colorado case.
Alexandra Nagy, organizing director at Consumer Watchdog, praised the latest move.
Nagy said:
"Justice Alito’s recusal... is the right decision, and one he should have made from the start,"
The oil and gas industry has hoped for a broad Supreme Court ruling that would stop similar cases in state courts and potentially spare firms billions in damages. With Alito out, reporting notes the possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave major legal questions unresolved.
That outcome would keep the door open for more local governments to pursue climate damages theories in friendly state venues rather than face a uniform national limit.
Parallel coverage has tracked how Alito stepped aside from the Colorado climate fight against oil companies as the recusal pressure mounted.
In 2023, Alito recused when the Court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado dispute. The same day, the Court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other firms, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito did not take part in those either.
The Court still holds a 6-3 conservative majority when fully staffed. Removing one conservative vote changes the math for any decision that needs five justices to set nationwide precedent.
Some conservatives, meanwhile, pushed Liberal Justice Elena Kagan to recuse over a chapter on climate change in a reference manual for judges. Kagan wrote a brief foreword to the manual and recently told lawmakers she never read the chapter in question. No matching recusal followed.
Alito has also shut down retirement talk in recent public remarks, making clear he intends to remain on the Court even as activists target his participation in individual cases.
Boulder’s suit is part of a wider strategy: use state courts to treat ordinary energy production as a tort and extract large payouts for climate effects. Energy firms say these cases belong under federal law and national policy, not patchwork local damages actions.
A definitive Supreme Court ruling could have told lower courts where those suits may proceed. Sitting a justice out after the Court’s own lawyers said no financial conflict existed weakens the chance of that clarity.
Related reporting has described how Alito sits out the major climate damages case at the center of this industry-wide legal fight.
The letter gives lawyers and the public the result, not the rationale. The stocks at issue are not in the named parties. The Court’s counsel had already said recusal was unnecessary. The pressure campaign still got its outcome days before argument.
Alito’s broader record includes ending weeks of retirement speculation by stating he would serve another term, so the present dispute is about one case, not his future on the bench.
When pressure campaigns can sideline a justice the Court’s own lawyers cleared to sit, climate litigants gain leverage and the public loses a full Court on rules that affect energy, jobs, and prices.
