Alito sits out Suncor–Boulder climate case; Oct. 5 argument stands
Justice Samuel Alito will not take part in the Suncor versus Boulder climate case at the Supreme Court. Arguments still begin on October 5 with eight justices sitting on the bench.
Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court clerk told counsel in a September 28 letter, and oral argument remains set for Monday, October 5, to open the new term. CNBC, The Hill, Colorado Public Radio, CBS News, and Fox News all reported the one-line notice that Alito “will not continue to participate,” with no published reason from the Court.
Boulder’s 2018 state-court suit argues Exxon Mobil and Suncor misled the public about fossil-fuel harms and should help pay climate-adaptation costs after floods and wildfires. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed under state law; the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether federal statutes preempt those claims and whether the Court even has jurisdiction at this stage. Those questions could reshape dozens of similar municipal suits nationwide.
Alito does not appear to hold Exxon or Suncor stock, but his financial disclosures show energy holdings including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Ethics groups say those positions create a conflict if a merits ruling moves the broader industry; the Court itself has not confirmed any motive. An eight-justice bench raises a 4–4 affirm possibility that would leave Colorado’s ruling intact without a national written precedent.
Argument audio and transcripts typically post at supremecourt.gov the same day; SCOTUSblog and NPR will carry live explainers. Wednesday’s overnight card refreshes the late-night sticky: recusal confirmed; reason unpublished; October 5 still on.
CNBC, The Hill, CBS, and Fox agree the clerk notified parties that Alito will not participate and that October 5 argument still stands.
Where outlets agree CNBC, The Hill, CBS, and Fox agree the clerk notified parties that Alito will not participate and that October 5 argument still stands.
Where they differ Ethics advocates tie the step to energy stock holdings; the Court published no reason, and allies note justices need not explain every recusal.