Justice Alito Recuses from Suncor Energy v. Boulder County Climate Case

One week from today, the Supreme Court will open its term with oral argument in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. The case—which asks whether federal law or the Constitution preempts state-law claims for damages allegedly caused by climate change—is almost certainly the most significant case of the Court's October sitting and may be among the most consequential of the entire OT 2026 term.

This morning, the Court delivered unwelcome news to the Suncor petitioners: Justice Alito is out. According to a letter to counsel from the Clerk of Court, "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case."

Implications of the Recusal

Justice Alito's recusal is likely bad news for the petitioners. He is among the more preemption-friendly justices on the Court, having dissented in both Virginia Uranium v. Warren and Hencely v. Fluor—both recent 6–3 decisions rejecting preemption. Like most observers, I had assumed that Justice Alito was among the most likely to side with the petitioners' claims, along with the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh.

Possible Reason for Recusal

Justice Alito's recusal is likely a result of his ownership of individual energy company stocks. While he does not own shares in any of the companies before the Court in Suncor, he does own stocks in companies that have been subject to similar suits—and has recused in other cases accordingly. I suspect that is what caused the recusal here.

What is more difficult to explain than the decision to recuse is the timing: Why now? Calls for Justice Alito to recuse were made much earlier—and were previously rejected. Assuming his stock ownership is the reason for the recusal, this should serve as a reminder that judges should own mutual funds instead of individual stocks.

Additional Resources

Before news of Justice Alito's recusal broke, I participated in a Federalist Society "Seat at the Sitting" webinar in which Suncor was a major focus. For those interested, the video is available above.

For further reading, here are my prior posts on this subject:

• Why State Common Law Nuisance Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies Are Not Preempted (Oct. 27, 2021)
• Third Circuit Rejects Oil Company Efforts to Remove Climate Claims to Federal Court (Aug. 17, 2022)
• Oil Companies Fail to Convince the Eighth Circuit Climate Cases Should Be Removed to Federal Court (Updated) (Mar. 25, 2023)
• [Is Climate Change Going Back to the Supreme Court? (Minnesota Edition) [UPDATED]](https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/11/is-climate-change-going-back-to-the-supreme-court-minnesota-edition/) (Dec. 11, 2023)
• D.C. Circuit Rejects Oil Company Attempt to Remove District's Climate Suit to Federal Court (Dec. 19, 2023)
• William Barr Responds on American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota (Dec. 26, 2023)
• Supreme Court Takes a Pass on Minnesota Climate Change Case (Jan. 8, 2024)
• Are State Law Climate Change Tort Suits Preempted by Federal Law? (May 3, 2024)
• Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Climate Tort Suits (Jan. 13, 2025)
• Supreme Court Rejects Red State Attempt to Sue Blue States Over Climate Suits (Mar. 10, 2025)
• William Barr Discovers the Economics of Tort Law (and Misrepresents the Law Governing Interstate Pollution) (Nov. 3, 2025)
• Placing Climate Tort Litigation in Context (Updated) (Nov. 7, 2025)
• A Second Round with William Barr on Litigation Over Interstate Pollution (Dec. 2, 2025)
• Court Dismisses Trump Administration Effort to Block Michigan Climate Lawsuit (Feb. 4, 2026)
• Climate Change Goes Back to the Supreme Court -- Colorado Edition (Feb. 23, 2026)
• Previewing Suncor Energy v. Boulder County (Mar. 6, 2026)
• Amicus Brief in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County (Aug. 3, 2026)
• Supreme Court Term to Start Hot (Aug. 6, 2026)