By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-09-29 02:06:57 | Updated at 2026-09-29 03:45:41
1 hour ago
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself on Sept. 28 from an upcoming case in which oil companies argue that federal law bars cities and states from suing them over so-called climate change.
The case concerns a 2018 lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, and San Miguel County, Colorado, against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil.
In addition, many states, such as California and Hawaii, as well as local governments, such as Chicago and Baltimore, have filed lawsuits against energy companies, alleging that their products have an adverse impact on the climate. In some suits, they also allege that the companies have misrepresented risks related to their products.
In the case at hand, the justices will consider whether federal law blocks cities and states from using their own courts and tort laws to sue energy companies over alleged climate harms. A tort is a civil wrong that injures a person or property. The injured party sues in court for money or other relief.
Clerk of the Court Scott Harris said in a letter to attorneys that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case.” No explanation for the decision was provided.
The case, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, is scheduled for oral argument on Oct. 5. The Trump administration supports the position of Exxon and Suncor, arguing that federal law forecloses Boulder’s claims.
Alito has disclosed holding stock in various energy companies, but not in Suncor Energy or Exxon Mobil. His most recent financial disclosure indicated he owns shares in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, which are defendants in other climate-related litigation.
Watchdog and environmentalist groups previously called on the justice to step aside from the current case. He recused himself from the litigation when an earlier version of the case reached the nation’s highest court in 2023. At that time, the court declined to take up the case.
In the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, Boulder alleges that the oil companies misled the public about the climate-related risks of hydrocarbons, also known as fossil fuels.
The oil companies counter that state law does not allow lawsuits to target a worldwide issue.
The state-level trial court refused to throw out the Boulder lawsuit. A divided Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.
The state’s high court said U.S. Supreme Court decisions treat interstate pollution as a federal matter. It still allowed Boulder’s case to move forward under state law. The oil companies say that ruling was wrong.
“There are few, if any, more consequential questions pending in the lower courts concerning the relationship between state and federal law,” the companies’ petition states. “Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” the petition adds.
Attorneys for Boulder argued in a brief that Colorado law can address harm inside the state even when the companies’ conduct occurred elsewhere.
“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos,” the brief reads.
With Alito not participating in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court could end up deadlocked in a 4–4 vote, which would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in place.
Reuters contributed to this report.
