The Supreme Court on Monday announced that Justice Samuel Alito will not continue to participate in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a significant dispute that will be argued in just one week, on Monday, Oct. 5, the first day of the 2026-27 term.
Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, revealed Alito’s last-minute recusal in a short letter to advocates involved in the case. Harris’ note does not provide an explanation for the decision, saying simply that “Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate.”
In Suncor Energy, the court is considering the use of state-level tort claims to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for their alleged role in exacerbating climate change. The case involves officials in the Boulder, Colorado, area, but it is likely to have nationwide ramifications, because similar lawsuits have been filed in states across the country.
In May, a coalition of left-leaning watchdog groups urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement in the dispute, contending that his “substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies,” among other issues, would “undermin[e] public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.” They stated that Alito had “previously recused from considering a petition brought by” the same companies involved in Suncor Energy. “There is no apparent reason for this change in Justice Alito’s recusal practices, and Alito provided no statement justifying his failure to recuse,” the groups wrote.
At the time, a Supreme Court spokeswoman told NBC News that “Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” and that he had been advised that “recusal is not required” by the Supreme Court’s legal counsel.
Under the Supreme Court’s code of conduct, which the justices issued in November 2023, justices are required to recuse themselves from “a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The code defines this as a situation in which “an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The code of conduct notes that this includes cases in which a justice “has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.”
Justices are not required to explain why they are recusing themselves, although they sometimes do, especially when the recusal stems from “prior … judicial service” – that is, the justice worked on the case at an earlier point in the proceedings.
Nevertheless, the lack of explanation in Monday’s letter is still somewhat notable given the amount of detail provided when Harris announced in January – less than a week before oral argument – that Alito would not continue to participate in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, a dispute over the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court that also involved oil and gas companies. Harris pointed to Alito’s “financial interest in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation for Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company.” Harris explained that “Justice Alito initially decided not to recuse because on June 2, 2025 Burlington was dismissed as a petitioner in this Court under Rule 46.1 after Burlington advised the Court by letter that it was ‘withdrawing’ from the petition and that ‘neither Burlington Resources nor ConocoPhillips will be a party to (or have any other involvement in) the above-referenced case.’ Later briefing, however, noted that Burlington remained a party in the district court.”
