Samuel Alito recuses from major Supreme Court climate case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recuses himself from Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a major climate change case scheduled for oral arguments on 5 October 2026. Alito's decision follows intense pressure from progressive groups highlighting his $175,000 to $575,000 in fossil fuel investments, including stocks in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. His recusal leaves an eight-justice bench, raising the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock that would leave the lower court's ruling in favor of Boulder, Colorado, intact.

Potential impact of Alito's recusal

• ▪In May 2025, a 4-4 split scenario occurred when Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from a case involving a Catholic charter school seeking admission into the Oklahoma charter school system
• ▪Justice Samuel Alito's recusal leaves an eight-justice bench for Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, raising the possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave the lower court's ruling in place

Pressure on Justice Alito to recuse

• ▪Watchdog and progressive groups, including Consumer Watchdog, pressured Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself because his investments in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 could benefit from a ruling shielding the fossil fuel industry
• ▪A Supreme Court spokesperson stated in May 2026 that Justice Samuel Alito was advised by legal counsel that recusal was not required because he had no financial interest in any party involved

Justice Alito's fossil fuel investments

• ▪Justice Samuel Alito does not hold direct investments or stock in Suncor Energy or ExxonMobil, the two primary corporate parties in the Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County case
• ▪Justice Samuel Alito and his wife own a mineral interest in land in Grady County, Oklahoma, valued between $100,001 and $250,000, from which they receive a percentage of oil and gas sales
• ▪Justice Samuel Alito holds between $175,000 and $575,000 in fossil fuel industry investments, including stocks in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, according to his 2025 financial disclosures

The Boulder climate change lawsuit

• ▪The city and county of Boulder, Colorado, filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, seeking billions of dollars in damages for property damage and mitigation costs related to climate change
• ▪The Trump administration backed Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in the Suncor v. Boulder litigation, arguing that federal law precludes Boulder's state-law claims
• ▪The Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County case, scheduled for oral arguments on 5 October 2026, addresses whether federal law preempts state-level claims seeking damages for greenhouse gas emissions

Debatable claims

• ▪Supreme Court justices should be required to publicly explain their recusal decisions
• ▪Justice Alito's indirect fossil fuel investments created a disqualifying conflict of interest in the Suncor case
• ▪State courts are an appropriate venue for climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel companies
• ▪An eight-justice Supreme Court bench is inadequate for resolving major national disputes