Justice Alito’s Recusal from Climate Case is the “Bare Minimum” to Address Glaring Conflict of Interest

WASHINGTON-Earlier today, the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court announced Justice Samuel Alito will "not continue to participate" in the Suncor v. Boulder case, which the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments for in just one week. Justice Samuel Alito's direct ownership of oil stocks and his close relationship with Suncor investor Paul Singer led to his previous recusal in a related 2023 Boulder climate accountability lawsuit.

Below is a statement from Kathy Mulvey, Director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

"Justice Alito's recusal in this case should've been a foregone conclusion. While we welcome today's announcement as a step toward a fairer, more impartial process for all parties involved, Justice Alito's decision is the bare minimum we should expect from a justice on our nation's highest court.

"Internal corporate documents and other evidence now in the public domain show that the fossil fuel industry employed many of the same deceptive strategies used by the tobacco and lead industries, which have been the subject of extensive litigation. In those cases, courts addressed claims that manufacturers possessed substantial internal knowledge regarding the dangers of their products while simultaneously conducting coordinated public campaigns to minimize, obscure or cast doubt upon those dangers.

"Communities like Boulder deserve their day in court, through a process protected from financial conflicts of interest and from an industry hell-bent on securing immunity from liability."

Last month, UCS joined with other experts in filing an amicus curiae brief in support of the respondents in the Suncor v. Boulder case, documenting ExxonMobil's and Suncor Energy's concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products.

Many previous court rulings, including from this Supreme Court, have affirmed state courts as the appropriate venue for cases against fossil fuel corporations over climate damages and fraud. Currently, lawsuits filed by other states and municipalities are waiting for the outcome of this ruling to move forward with their cases in state courtrooms across the country.