Justice Alito Recuses Himself from Climate Change Case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has stepped back from a significant climate change liability case just days before the scheduled oral arguments.

On Monday, Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, notified the attorneys involved in the case Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County that Alito had recused himself, though no reason was given for his decision.

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, commented that while Alito does not take his responsibilities lightly, she did not anticipate his recusal to have a major effect on the case’s outcome.

The justices were set to begin the 2026-27 term by hearing arguments in this case, which revolves around whether Boulder, Colorado, can pursue state-law tort claims against oil and gas companies for their alleged contributions to climate change.

This case has garnered attention from Republican officials who argue that Colorado is utilizing the judicial system to further its environmental agenda.

Steve Cox, a former attorney general of Alaska, mentioned in a conference call on Tuesday that this strategy involves cities and states employing mass tort litigation in a coordinated effort, effectively bypassing their elected representatives.

O.H. Skinner, a former Arizona solicitor general, emphasized that this issue isn’t solely about climate change or science; it’s more about allowing judicial maneuvers to redefine American society. The broader question is whether courts should act as primary policymakers.

Skinner acknowledged that Alito’s choice was likely not made lightly but expressed concern that the absence of a justice could diminish the court’s integrity.

His last-minute decision to recuse himself follows a previous instance in January when he stepped back from a case regarding coastal erosion in Louisiana due to a conflict involving stock ownership in a related company.

In the midst of this situation, Justice Elena Kagan is facing pressure to recuse herself from Suncor v. Boulder, mainly because of her involvement with a climate science chapter in a judicial manual that has faced criticism for bias.

More than a dozen legal groups have called for an investigation into Kagan’s potential conflict of interest.

Concerns have been raised about her ability to impartially adjudicate the case, given her prior endorsement of the contentious climate science chapter.