Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a high-stakes climate liability case involving Suncor Energy, a move announced Monday in a letter from the Supreme Court clerk. The withdrawal, occurring just one week before oral arguments are scheduled to begin on Oct. 5, 2026, significantly alters the mathematical path to a ruling for the energy industry.
The case, Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, centers on whether local governments in Colorado can use state-law tort claims to sue oil and gas companies for damages attributed to climate change. With Alito’s exit, the court now faces the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. Under Supreme Court rules, a tie vote leaves the lower court’s judgment in place without creating a nationwide legal precedent. In this instance, that would affirm a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that allowed the local lawsuits to proceed.
This marks the second time in 2026 that Alito has stepped away from a significant environmental case shortly before a hearing. In January, he recused himself from Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, a decision linked to his ownership of stock in ConocoPhillips, the parent company of Burlington Resources Oil and Gas. Public financial disclosures have previously highlighted Alito’s holdings in various energy firms, including ConocoPhillips, which frequently intersect with litigation reaching the high court.
The Pressure on Justice Kagan
The departure of Justice Alito has intensified focus on Justice Elena Kagan, who is facing separate calls for recusal from industry proponents. Critics point to Kagan’s role in writing the foreword for the fourth edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” a resource used by federal judges to evaluate expert testimony.
The manual recently became a point of contention after the Federal Judicial Center removed its “Climate Science” chapter following criticism that the material reflected a biased perspective. While the plaintiffs in the Suncor case argue their claims are traditional matters of state-law nuisance and consumer protection, opponents argue the manual’s previous inclusion of climate science suggests a predisposition toward the plaintiffs’ scientific framework.
Potential Consequences of a Tie
If the remaining eight justices split evenly, the oil industry would lose its primary opportunity to move these climate cases out of state courts and into the federal system, where they generally face stricter jurisdictional hurdles.
Legal analysts suggest that a 4-4 split would be a major tactical victory for the Colorado local governments, as it would permit their discovery process to continue in state courts. O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, has argued that allowing these state-level lawsuits to move forward could effectively “rewrite the American economy” by subjecting national energy production to a patchwork of state-level liability rulings.
The court’s decision to hear the Suncor case was originally seen as a chance for the conservative majority to set a clear federal standard. Without Alito, the industry must now secure at least five of the remaining eight votes to overturn the Colorado decision, a task that becomes significantly more difficult if the court’s liberal wing remains unified in favor of the local governments.
