Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate-change case scheduled for argument next week, a reversal from the court's earlier position that there was no reason for him to step aside. Alito will no longer participate in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a closely watched dispute that could affect dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold oil and gas companies financially accountable for climate-related damages.
The move is a "major U-turn” NBC reported, adding that the court previously told the outlet that Alito did not need to recuse himself despite an earlier recusal in related proceedings. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court by email for comment on Monday. The case is considered one of the most significant climate-related disputes to reach the Supreme Court in years because it could determine whether state and local governments can pursue climate-damages lawsuits against fossil fuel companies in state courts.
More than two dozen states, cities and local governments have filed similar lawsuits seeking compensation for the costs of addressing climate change, reported. Oil companies have argued that such claims are preempted by federal law and should not proceed under state legal theories. The case has also become a flashpoint in the debate over Supreme Court ethics.
Environmental groups and watchdog organizations have questioned whether Alito should participate because of financial interests and other connections involving the energy sector. With Alito stepping aside, eight justices are expected to hear arguments, raising the possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave the lower court's ruling in place. County Commissioners of Boulder County arose from a lawsuit filed by Boulder County, the City of Boulder and San Miguel County, Colorado, against major energy companies including ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.
According to Boulder County, the local governments are seeking compensation for damages linked to climate change, including costs associated with floods, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather events. The plaintiffs argue that fossil fuel companies knew for decades about the climate risks associated with their products while misleading the public about those dangers. Boulder County has emphasized that it is not seeking to regulate emissions or dictate national energy policy.
Instead, it argues that the case involves traditional state-law claims seeking damages for local harms. reported that the oil companies contend climate change is a global issue governed by federal law, not state tort law. The companies argue that federal authority over interstate emissions and energy policy preempts the claims brought by Colorado's local governments. As SCOTUSblog noted, the Supreme Court is not being asked to decide whether fossil fuel companies caused climate change.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
