Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a landmark climate lawsuit pitting Boulder against big oil companies, the court announced in a letter Monday.
The one-sentence letter from Scott S. Harris, the court’s clerk, provided no details about why Alito decided not to participate in the Suncor v. United States case. Boulder. The High Court will hear the landmark climate case at the start of its new term on Monday October 5.
The case could have a direct impact on about two dozen similar climate lawsuits pending in state courts nationwide.
In a 2018 lawsuit, the city and county of Boulder argued that oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor misled consumers about the harms of burning fossil fuels and that they should share the costs of adapting to the growing consequences of climate disasters, such as floods and wildfires.
Alito does not own shares of Suncor or ExxonMobil. But he has thousands of dollars in investments in oil companies ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, according to a report released earlier this month by the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, and Alito’s own 2025 financial disclosures.
Alito rebuffed previous calls to recuse himself from the case earlier this year. A Supreme Court spokesperson also told NBC News in May that he inadvertently recused himself in 2023, when Suncor and Exxon unsuccessfully asked the Court to reconsider the case.
Consumer Watchdog said in its report that Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips warned shareholders in their annual reports that climate litigation could hurt the companies’ financial results.
Their report asserts that the 2023 Supreme Court Code of Conduct is broad and sets out several scenarios in which a judge should recuse themselves, particularly if they have a financial interest “in the matter in controversy” or “any other interest that could be materially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
“The recusal of Justice Alito in Suncor v. Boulder is the right decision, and it should have been made from the start,” Alexandra Nagy, organizing director of Consumer Watchdog, said in a statement.
“The public should not have to wonder whether a judge’s personal investments might benefit from a ruling that shields the fossil fuel industry from liability,” she added.
Stephen Gillers, professor emeritus at New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, said each judge has sole discretion over whether he or she participates in a case. He said judges were not required to publicly disclose the reason or justification for their recusal.
“Recusal in the Supreme Court, or even recusal even in the lower courts, is often a black box,” Gillers told CPR News in an interview last week. “There is no need to explain why you recused yourself or not”
The Boulder case never went to trial and spent eight years bouncing between different courts. In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way for the lawsuit, but the United States Supreme Court intervened in February 2026 and revisited the case.
The Supreme Court asks two questions in its review of the case: whether federal law preempts Boulder’s arguments and whether it is too early to hear the case.
In their legal briefs submitted to the court, Exxon and Suncor argue that Boulder is actually seeking to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions, which is a power given to the federal government under the Clean Air Act.
Gn headline
