Supreme Court Justice Alito recuses from major climate change case - USA Today
WASHINGTON − Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in the court's consideration of a landmark climate change case, the court said on Sept. 28.
Alito − one of the most conservative of the court's six Republican-appointed justices − did not give a reason for recusing himself from deciding if local governments may go after fossil fuel companies for harms caused by climate change.
But environmental groups had called on Alito to step aside because he owns stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.
While the appeal the Supreme Court will debate on Oct. 5 comes from ExxonMobil and Suncor, it could affect other fossil fuel companies − including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 − that are targeted in similar suits.
"As a shareholder, Alito has been warned that climate deception lawsuits pose financial risks to his investments," Alexandra Nagy with the group Consumer Watchdog said this month. “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.”
The case from Boulder, Colorado − the first the Supreme Court will hear when the justices return from their summer break on Oct. 5 − is also one of the biggest it will consider this term. Dozens of similar suits have been filed across the country. Billions of dollars are potentially at stake. And climate change is one of the most significant issues facing not just the nation, but the world.
In a challenge that began in 2018, the city and surrounding county allege the companies violated state law by misleading the public about the environmental effects of fossil fuels and should have to help cover costs incurred by the community from climate change.
The companies, which deny the allegations, argue local governments can’t use state laws to tackle a global environmental issue.
The court has a 6-3 conservative supermajority.
Alito’s recusal raises the possibility that the court could split 4-4 over the case. If that happens, the oil companies’ appeal would fail and Boulder’s lawsuit would proceed.
Gabe Roth, executive director of the court transparency group Fix the Court, said the justices should be required to explain their recusals.
"Is Justice Alito stepping aside because his clerks belatedly found a connection between this case and the companies whose shares he owns?" Roth said. "Or is this the rare instance where a justice believes that open questions about his impartiality demand recusal?"
In May, a court spokeswoman told NBC News that the court’s legal counsel had advised Alito that his recusal was not required because he “does not have a financial interest in any party.”
But Consumer Watchdog argued that, under the court's code of ethics, a justice should not participate in a case if his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.
Alito did recuse himself from deciding in 2023 whether the court should get involved at an earlier stage of the Colorado litigation.
And he did not participate in the court’s 2025 rejection of an appeal in a similar case from Hawaii, which involved ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.
