Eight-justice bench set for Suncor climate argument October 5
Justice Alito’s recusal leaves eight justices for the Boulder climate case next week. Ethics groups cite energy stock holdings, but the Court published no reason for the sit-out this week.
Justice Samuel Alito’s decision to sit out Suncor Energy v. Boulder leaves an eight-justice Court for the October 5 argument that opens the new term, CBS News, Colorado Public Radio, and Fox News reported after the clerk’s September 28 letter. The Court gave no reason in the one-line notice to counsel. Ethics advocates point to Alito’s disclosed holdings in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 even though he does not appear to hold Exxon or Suncor stock.
Boulder’s suit seeks to hold fossil-fuel companies to account for climate harms under state law after years of flooding and wildfire costs. Energy defendants argue federal statutes preempt those claims and that the dispute is not ripe for Supreme Court review in the posture presented. A four-four split would leave Colorado’s ruling intact without a national written precedent — an outcome both sides are already war-gaming in memos.
Recusal fights have shadowed several energy and gun cases in recent terms. Justices rarely explain sit-outs in clerk letters, which frustrates transparency advocates and suits colleagues who prefer silence on ethics mechanics. Consumer Watchdog and similar groups had publicly pressed the issue before the letter issued.
Argument audio typically posts at supremecourt.gov the same day. Watch SCOTUSblog live explainers and whether any further Court note clarifies the recusal before October 5. Overnight does not invent a published reason that the clerk did not provide.
CBS, Fox, and The Hill agree Alito will not participate and October 5 argument still stands.
Ethics groups tie the step to energy holdings; the Court published no reason and allies note justices need not explain every recusal.
Where outlets agree CBS, Fox, and The Hill agree Alito will not participate and October 5 argument still stands.
Where they differ Ethics groups tie the step to energy holdings; the Court published no reason and allies note justices need not explain every recusal.