NEW: Justice Alito Abruptly Reverses Course In Key SCOTUS Case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has abruptly withdrawn from one of the most consequential climate-related cases before the high court, leaving just eight justices to decide a dispute that could affect lawsuits seeking billions of dollars from fossil-fuel companies.

The court notified attorneys Monday that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate” in *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*.

No explanation was provided for his decision.

The last-minute development comes ahead of arguments in a closely watched Colorado case that could have implications for similar climate lawsuits brought by states and municipalities across the country.

The dispute dates back to 2018, when Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy in Colorado state court. San Miguel County later joined the litigation.

The municipalities allege the companies contributed to “climate-related harms” through decades of fossil-fuel production, refining and sales, along with what the plaintiffs describe as “concealment or misrepresentation” concerning the risks associated with their products.

They are seeking damages under Colorado state law for costs they attribute to climate change, including flooding, wildfire risks, drought and damage to public infrastructure.

The energy companies argue that the claims cannot proceed under state tort law because federal law governs interstate air pollution and because allowing individual states to regulate conduct tied to global emissions raises constitutional concerns.

After years of litigation over where and how the case could proceed, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently agreed to hear the dispute.

The stakes extend far beyond Colorado.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against fossil-fuel producers by states and local governments seeking compensation for climate-related costs. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could therefore shape how those cases proceed.

Alito’s withdrawal is particularly notable because he previously recused himself from an earlier petition arising from the same Colorado litigation in 2023.

He has also stepped aside from other energy-related cases.

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the current Suncor appeal, however, a court spokesperson said in May that Alito “does not have a financial interest in any party” and that the court’s legal counsel had determined recusal was not required.

Alito does not own stock in Exxon Mobil or Suncor.

His most recent financial disclosure does list individual investments in other energy companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, which are defendants in separate climate-related litigation.

Advocacy groups had argued that those investments, combined with the potential industry-wide implications of the Suncor case, raised questions under the Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct.

The code states that a justice should recuse when the justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the justice has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy.

But justices generally are not required to explain why they recuse themselves, and Alito has not publicly stated what prompted his decision in this case.

His absence could have a significant procedural consequence.

Only eight justices will now participate. If the court divides 4-4, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling would remain in place without establishing a nationwide Supreme Court precedent.

The remaining court includes five conservative justices and three liberal justices, although ideological alignment does not necessarily determine how individual justices will approach the federal-preemption questions presented in the case.

Alito had been viewed by some legal observers as potentially receptive to the companies’ argument that federal law prevents states from using their own tort laws to impose liability over emissions associated with global climate change.

His decision to step aside removes one vote from the case before arguments even begin.

What remains unexplained is why.

The court’s notification says only that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate,” leaving the reason for his withdrawal undisclosed as the justices prepare to hear a case with potential consequences for climate litigation nationwide.