Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is recusing himself from a climate crisis-related case before the court this year, reversing his previous announcement that he would remain on the case despite his personal financial interests in its outcome.
Clerk of Court Scott Harris sent the announcement to attorneys on both sides of the pending matter on Monday.
“I am writing to inform the parties that Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case,” Harris wrote.
The letter gave no explanation as to why Alito came to the decision to recuse himself.
The case features ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, which are seeking to have a Colorado-based lawsuit against them dropped, citing federal law they claim supersedes state statutes. State municipalities are suing the companies, seeking to hold them financially liable for the impacts of the climate crisis.
Alito does not have any financial stakes in either company. However, the associate justice does hold stocks in other fossil fuel-based companies, which means the outcome of the case could still directly benefit him.
Earlier this year, Alito said he would not recuse himself from the case, claiming that, because he doesn’t have any stocks in those companies specifically, he doesn’t have a vested interest in the case’s outcome.
“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party,” a statement from the court read in May.
A coalition of progressive watchdog groups pushed back against that assertion, submitting evidence to Congress that Alito could be influenced by the pending ruling and urging lawmakers to investigate.
Alexandra Nagy, organizing director for Consumer Watchdog, one of the organizations involved in that request, reacted positively to Alito’s decision to recuse.
“Justice Alito’s recusal from Suncor v. Boulder is the right decision, and one he should have made from the start,” Nagy said, noting that “the Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct says a justice should step aside when the justice has a financial interest in the subject matter of a case or another interest that could be substantially affected by its outcome.”
“The public should not have to wonder whether a justice’s personal investments could benefit from a ruling that shields the fossil-fuel industry from liability,” Nagy added.
Others reacted to the decision by calling for limits on the stocks justices are allowed to invest in — if they’re allowed to have stocks at all.
“The real question is: Why does any justice hold stock in an individual company that is part of an industry that is going to appear before the court?” asked Louis Virelli, a law professor at Stetson University and an expert on judicial recusals.
Alito’s refusal to recuse in other key cases has been highlighted in the past, including in 2024, when he refused to step aside in cases involving January 6 defendants and in other high profile cases relating to President Donald Trump.
That year, it was revealed that Alito had flown a U.S. flag upside down — a symbol adopted by Trump loyalists and the “Stop the Steal” movement — outside of his Virginia home in 2021, shortly after Trump was impeached for instigating the January 6 attack. Alito also flew an “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his home, a symbol commonly used by Christian nationalists.
This past Supreme Court term has been viewed negatively by most Americans. According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted in July, only 36 percent of respondents gave the high court approving marks, while 50 percent said they disapproved of the court’s job over the past year. Alito also received a negative review, garnering a -7 point net approval rating from voters.
We lost 15 percent of our traffic overnight.
We now have three full months of data since Google changed its search to feature AI results. The numbers are worse than we anticipated. Overall readership that comes to Truthout through Google is down 54 percent against last year. The number of new readers who discover Truthout via Google searches is down 49 percent, and returning users from Google are down 51 percent.
We lost 15 percent of our readership overnight. This was a readership we painstakingly built over decades, and it vanished because Google chose corporate greed over a healthy democracy.
We anticipate a loss of roughly $500,000 in online revenue as a result of this massive traffic plunge in the next year alone.
The only way we can keep publishing is with strong reader support. We are asking you to start a monthly donation to Truthout today — anything you can do, whether $5 or $25, makes a difference.