Justice Samuel Alito stepped away from Suncor v. Boulder one week before arguments, leaving eight justices to decide a climate liability case that could reshape two dozen similar suits.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself Monday from one of the most closely watched cases of the coming term, stepping away from a landmark climate lawsuit against two major oil companies just one week before oral arguments begin. The decision arrived in a single-sentence letter to the parties from Scott S. Harris, the clerk of the court. Suncor v. Boulder opens the Supreme Court's new term on Monday, October 5, and its outcome could shape roughly two dozen similar climate lawsuits now working through state courts nationwide.
The letter offered no explanation for the recusal, and none is required. Alito, an appointee of President George W. Bush who has served on the bench since 2006, will take no part in the case. The remaining eight justices will hear the arguments in his absence.
The clerk's notice to counsel stated only that Alito "has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case." That is consistent with how recusals are handled at the high court, where each justice decides independently whether to sit on a matter.
"Recusal on the Supreme Court, or indeed recusal even on lower courts, is often a black box," said Stephen Gillers, professor emeritus at New York University Law School. "There's no need to explain why you have or have not recused."
The decision followed months of public pressure. Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, published a report this month urging Alito to step aside, pointing to financial disclosure forms that show he holds investments in the oil and gas sector. Alito had previously declined to recuse himself. A court spokesperson said in May that he had inadvertently sat out an earlier stage of the same dispute in 2023, when the companies unsuccessfully asked the justices to take up the case.
The dispute dates to a 2018 complaint filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. Local officials argued the companies misled the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and should help pay the costs of adapting to floods, wildfires, and other climate-related damage.
The suit has never reached trial. It has instead spent eight years moving between courts. In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way for it to proceed, and in February the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the matter before a trial could begin.
The justices are weighing two questions: whether federal law pre-empts Boulder's claims, and whether the case is premature for the court to take up at all. Exxon and Suncor contend that Boulder is really attempting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a power they say Congress assigned to the federal government through the Clean Air Act.
That framing reaches far beyond one Colorado city. A ruling for the energy companies could undercut a wave of comparable suits brought by states and municipalities seeking damages from producers. The litigation has unfolded alongside a broader federal shift in energy policy, including the administration's rollback" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://freedomlinedispatch.com/policy/epa-power-plant-carbon-limits-repeal'>rollback of power plant carbon limits, which has pushed the fight over emissions out of Washington agencies and into courtrooms across the country.
Alito's absence changes the arithmetic on a court that has operated with a 6-3 conservative majority. With eight justices hearing the case, an even split would leave the lower court's ruling in place without setting any national precedent. Colorado's Supreme Court decision is the ruling currently on the books, and it would stand in a tie, binding the parties but no other court.
A majority of the eight would be needed to reverse that outcome and deliver a nationwide rule on whether these climate liability claims can proceed in state court. The practical result is that a single justice's vote carries unusual weight in a term-opening case that legal observers on both sides have flagged as significant.
The court has asked the parties to address both the substance of the pre-emption question and the procedural timing of the review, which means the justices could resolve the appeal without reaching the merits of Boulder's underlying claims.
Arguments are set for the first day of the new term, giving the justices an immediate test of how they will handle a docket thick with cases touching energy, federal agency power, and state-versus-federal authority. How the eight remaining justices frame the pre-emption question will signal how broadly they intend to rule.
Recusal practice itself is likely to stay in the spotlight. The court adopted a formal code of conduct in 2023, and advocacy groups on the left have used it to press justices over financial holdings and outside ties. Justice Elena Kagan and others have faced similar requests in recent years, and each new case renews the debate over how much the public is entitled to know about why a justice steps aside.
For now, the immediate takeaway is simple. The most consequential climate case of the young term will be decided by eight justices, not nine, and the first word from the bench comes October 5.
Justice Samuel Alito stepped away from Suncor v. Boulder one week before arguments, leaving eight justices to decide a climate liability case that could reshape two dozen similar suits.
freedomlinedispatch.com
