Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Alito Calls Climate Case Recusal Prudent, Though Not Required
Justice Samuel Alito is one of the judges considering an important climate lawsuit.
The lawsuit was brought by Boulder, Colorado, against energy companies.
Boulder wants to seek money for costs connected to climate change.
Alito’s family owns shares in some oil and gas companies.
He asked the Supreme Court’s legal office whether he had to leave the case.
The office said he did not have to leave under the relevant rule.
Alito nevertheless decided that leaving was the prudent choice after studying the arguments more closely.
His absence could produce a tied vote among the remaining justices.
A tie would let the lawsuit continue but would not create a nationwide legal rule.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from a Supreme Court climate case involving Boulder, Colorado, and energy companies.
Alito said the decision was prudent after reviewing arguments, although the court’s legal office said recusal was not required.
The case concerns whether Boulder and Boulder County can sue Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy over climate-change costs.
Alito’s family owns stock in several oil and gas companies, including companies that could be affected by the case.
His withdrawal could lead to a 4-4 decision, allowing the Boulder suit to proceed without creating a nationwide precedent.
- Who
- Justice Samuel Alito, the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, Exxon Mobil, Suncor Energy, and other energy companies.
- What
- Alito recused himself from a Supreme Court case about whether Boulder can sue energy companies for climate-change costs, despite being told recusal was not required.
- When
- Alito explained his decision in an interview Wednesday; the case was scheduled for argument the following Monday.
- Where
- The case is before the United States Supreme Court and concerns Boulder, Colorado.
- Why
- Alito said recusal was prudent after considering the arguments, while noting that the applicable rule did not require recusal because his family’s shares were not in the parties to the case.
Recusal Advocates
Recusal Not Required
Whether Alito should participate
Recusal Advocates
Watchdog and environmental groups called for Alito to disqualify himself because his family owns energy-company stock and the case could affect the industry.
Recusal Not Required
Alito said he was not legally required to recuse himself because the shares were not in companies that were parties to the case, and the court’s legal office agreed.
Effect of the withdrawal
Recusal Advocates
Recusal supporters may view Alito’s withdrawal as a prudent step to avoid concerns about impartiality.
Recusal Not Required
The withdrawal could make it harder for the energy companies to obtain the five votes needed to stop Boulder’s lawsuit and could result in a 4-4 split.
- Justice
- Samuel Alito
- Case location
- Boulder, Colorado
- Named companies
- Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc.
- Issue
- Whether Boulder can sue energy companies for climate-change costs
- Recusal advice
- The Supreme Court’s legal office told Alito that recusal was not required.
- Potential outcome
- A 4-4 split could allow the case to proceed without establishing a nationwide precedent.
- Related litigation
- The ruling could affect dozens of similar suits involving energy companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.