Alito Steps Aside From Major Climate Case

Justice Samuel Alito has abruptly bowed out of a closely watched climate case days before the Supreme Court is set to hear it. In a brief notice Monday, the court said Alito "will not continue to participate" in Suncor v. Boulder, a dispute in which Colorado communities are trying to hold oil companies financially responsible under state law for climate-related harms. Politico reports. No reason was given for his reversal ahead of arguments on Oct. 5, the opening day of the court's new term.

• Under a code of conduct adopted in 2023 amid controversy over Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose luxury travel and other gifts from a billionaire GOP donor, it's up to justices to decide when to recuse themselves from cases, and they are not required to give a reason, the New York Times reports.

Alito, one of the court's most conservative justices, has been under pressure to step aside because he owns stock in several fossil fuel companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, which are defendants in similar climate lawsuits whose fate could hinge on the Suncor ruling. Court officials had previously said recusal wasn't required because he held no shares in Suncor or ExxonMobil, the companies directly named in the case. The Trump administration is backing the two companies, Reuters reports.

Consumer Watchdog called his move "the right decision," arguing the public shouldn't have to question whether a justice's portfolio might benefit from a ruling. Alito, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, is one of only two justices who hold individual company stocks. Judicial reform groups say the move is overdue. Gabe Roth of the Fix the Court group says it's a "prime example" of why justices should be required to explain recusals, the Times reports. "Is Justice Alito stepping aside because his clerks belatedly found some connection between this case and the companies whose shares he owns?" Roth says. "Or is this a rare instance where a justice believes that open questions about his impartiality demand his recusal?