A conservative Supreme Court justice has abruptly withdrawn from a major case carrying financial and regulatory consequences.
The unexplained reversal changes the court’s lineup before arguments begin on the opening day of its new term.
Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in Suncor Energy versus Boulder County, a major climate liability dispute.
Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris notified attorneys Monday that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate.”
The brief letter offered no explanation for the justice’s decision to step away from the proceedings.
His withdrawal leaves eight justices considering whether federal law blocks state lawsuits targeting fossil-fuel companies over alleged climate damages.
The Colorado dispute began in 2018 when Boulder and Boulder County sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy.
San Miguel County later joined the lawsuit, expanding the coalition pursuing damages from the energy producers.
The municipalities accused the companies of contributing to climate-related harms through decades of fossil-fuel production, refining and sales.
They also alleged concealment or misrepresentation concerning risks associated with those products and their environmental impact.
The plaintiffs want compensation for costs involving floods, wildfires, drought and damage to taxpayer-funded public infrastructure.
Their claims proceed under Colorado tort law, an approach energy companies argue cannot regulate global emissions through state courts.
Exxon and Suncor contend that federal law preempts the municipalities’ claims and requires dismissal of the case.
Their arguments invoke the Clean Air Act, federal common law and constitutional limits on state interference with interstate commerce.
After years of jurisdictional litigation, Colorado’s Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to continue in state court in 2025.
The United States Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to review that decision and resolve the federal preemption question.
The outcome could shape dozens of similar lawsuits filed by Democratic-led states and municipalities against energy producers nationwide.
Those cases collectively seek billions of dollars for alleged climate-related costs imposed on local governments and public services.
Alito’s decision could materially affect the outcome because an evenly divided court cannot produce a controlling majority.
A four-to-four split would leave Colorado’s ruling intact without establishing a binding nationwide Supreme Court precedent.
The remaining five conservative justices still outnumber the court’s three liberals if the conservative bloc remains united.
However, Alito has been considered particularly receptive to federal preemption arguments like those advanced by the energy companies.
His sudden absence therefore removes a potentially important vote from the companies’ side before oral arguments.
The recusal represents a reversal from the court’s position when it accepted the case for review.
A Supreme Court spokesperson said in May that Alito held no financial interest in either party.
Court legal counsel had advised that recusal was unnecessary, and Alito owned no stock in Exxon or Suncor.
Alito previously recused himself from an earlier petition involving the same Colorado litigation in 2023.
His latest financial disclosure lists holdings in energy companies including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.
Neither company is a party here, although both face comparable climate lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
Advocacy organizations argued that the broader industry consequences created at least an appearance of a potential conflict.
The Supreme Court’s conduct code recommends recusal when a justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Supreme Court justices generally are not required to publicly explain why they recuse themselves from individual cases.
Alito followed that practice, leaving observers to interpret the abrupt change without an official explanation.
The case arrives as blue jurisdictions increasingly use state courts to seek enormous payments from American energy companies.
Critics view those lawsuits as backdoor climate regulation that could raise costs while bypassing Congress and federal agencies.
The justices must decide the legal boundary between traditional state claims and federal authority over nationwide emissions.
Their ruling could either constrain the growing litigation campaign or provide municipalities another path toward massive recoveries, SCOTUS Blog reported.
Alito’s recusal does not determine that outcome, but it makes an inconclusive split significantly more possible.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
