It’d be interesting to know if any of the other justices, especially the liberal ones, have stock in fossil fuels companies, because the most likely reason is Alito’s holdings
Alito recuses from major climate change case to be decided by the Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito will no longer participate in a major climate change case involving two large energy companies, according to a letter from the Supreme Court that was sent Monday.
The one-line letter signed by Scott Harris, the Supreme Court’s clerk, and sent to the lawyers involved in the dispute states that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case.” No reason for Alito’s decision to sit out was provided, but it is likely because the justice has stock holdings in oil and gas companies, according to his financial disclosure report for 2025.
Alito’s decision to recuse himself comes one week before the Supreme Court will begin its new term with arguments in the dispute between Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil and Boulder, Colorado.
The city and county of Boulder sued the two companies in Colorado state court in 2018, arguing that their conduct contributed to global climate change. The city and county say Exxon Mobil and Suncor engaged in “unchecked production, promotion, refining, marketing and sale of fossil fuels,” and concealed or misrepresented the dangers associated with fossil fuels’ intended use, leading to “unchecked fossil fuel use” that has led to a rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The mostly likely outcome is that Boulder loses, but, with Alito out, will Roberts and possibly Coney Barrett vote with the 3 liberals? Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh will vote against Boulder, Sotomayor, Kagan, and the dumb one will vote with Boulder. So, if either Roberts or Coney Barrett vote with the libs then Boulder wins due to the lower court ruling, as if the Court never heard the case.
The Supreme Court is set to weigh not only whether to block the lawsuit from moving forward in state court, but also whether it has jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.
The outcome of the case could impact scores of similar lawsuits brought by states and localities against fossil-fuel producers alleging violations of state law. The states and local governments are seeking billions of dollars in money damages.
It could be huge in terms of whether the lawfare against fossil fuels companies (by people who won’t give up fossil fuels themselves) runs rampant.
This is the kind of case in which the fossil fuel companies should simply pull out of the state; let Coloradans survive without gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.
And risk losing billions in profits each year?
How would that help the legal case? Tobacco companies paid their money. At some point i think the fossil fuel companies will also do the same. In their own internal documents since the 70s they have admitted knowing that burning fossil fuels would cause an increase in world temps. Reagan and Margaret Thathcher both warned us in the 80s. Remember?
How could fossil fuel companies know back they what they don’t know now?
From an early Exxon study-“The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable”.
For a ton of reading material on the subject, go to WUWT and type in “What Exxon knew”. You’ll see that they didn’t “know” anything
Whereas ED sufferers like Jl deny the obvious for political beliefs while Exxon’s ED was based on economic concerns.
Nope-read the report at WUWT. The article is “What Exxon knew, part 2”. (While you’re thereI, read the other 15 or so articles on the same subject). It has nothing to do with politics or economic concerns
1954: Documents unearthed from the Air Pollution Foundation—a research group created and funded by oil companies like precursors to Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP—reveal that industry leaders were alerted to atmospheric CO2 accumulation and climate risks.
1959: Oil industry executives and scientists attended a Columbia University symposium explicitly warning that burning fossil fuels could alter the climate and melt ice caps.
1968: A report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API) by the Stanford Research Institute warned that rising carbon dioxide emissions could cause significant temperature shifts, melting Antarctic ice, and rising sea levels.
1970s–1980s: Major companies like Exxon and Shell launched sophisticated internal climate modeling and CO2 sampling programs. Exxon’s internal memos from scientists like James Black confirmed by 1977 that fossil fuel combustion caused global warming and threatened severe environmental impacts.
1979–1983: Representatives from major oil companies (including Exxon, Mobil, Shell, and Texaco) met regularly as part of an elite API climate task force to track the evolving science.
Late 1980s–1990s: Despite possessing accurate internal projections, major companies curtailed internal research, co-founded lobbying groups like the Global Climate Coalition, and financed public disinformation campaigns to manufacture scientific doubt and stall regulations (all in response to the IPCC formation in 1988).
So they’ve known for certain for at least 40 years. Just like Big Tobacco, Big Oil/Gas/Coal does not want to be held accountable for damages. Who can blame them?
TL;DNR
Learn to edit. Learn to code.
I make over 220 an hour working remotely and have more time to spend with my kids. My friend’s success paved the way for me. This wonderful opportunity allowed me to find the best work-life balance.
https://cashstatearn.pages.dev/
The dum(b) blogger typed: “.. will Roberts and possibly Coney Barrett vote with the 3 liberals? Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh will vote against Boulder, Sotomayor, Kagan, and the dumb one will vote with Boulder”
Hmmm, why did Justice Alito drop out?
Justice Alito “owns stock in two oil companies” and “had taken a luxury fishing trip with Mr. Singer (whose hedge fund was a Suncor investor) but failed to disclose it.”
Uh huh…
Remember when man-made climate change was the existential threat to humanity?
And before that the libtards claimed Donald Trump was the existential threat to humanity?
And before that…
1. Nucular holocaust was an existential threat to humanity. Still is.
2. Man-made climate change was an existential threat to humanity. Still is.
3. A pandemic is an existential threat to humanity. Still is.
4. Space aliens are an existential threat to humanity. Well…
5. A zombie apocalypse is an existential threat to humanity. Uh…
6. Chemtrails are an existential threat to humanity. Come on, now…
7. Communism is an existential threat to humanity. Nah… but autocracy…
8. Donald Trump is an existential threat to humanity. Not directly. But reference 1-3 above.
Nucular?
Really Rimjob if you’re going to copy&paste another’s comments without attribution at least correct the spelling.
It makes you look even more lazy and stupid than you really are.
I make over 220 an hour working remotely and have more time to spend with my kids. My friend’s success paved the way for me. This wonderful opportunity allowed me to find the best work-life balance.
https://cashstatearn.pages.dev/