OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Alito Recuses From Key Climate Change Case

9 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which is scheduled for oral argument on October 5. In a Monday letter, Clerk of the Court Scott Harris told the parties that Alito “has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case,” giving no reason. The case arises from a 2018 lawsuit by Boulder County and the City of Boulder, Colorado, against Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil seeking damages under state tort law for alleged climate-related harms; the companies contend that federal law preempts those claims. Alito does not own stock in either defendant but holds shares in other energy companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. He remained on the matter after the Court granted review; in May a Court spokeswoman said he had “inadvertently recused” from a 2023 appeal in the same litigation, that he had no financial interest in any party, and that Court counsel had advised recusal was not required.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles

2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 2
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Supreme Court, Harold Hongju Koh, Jonathan H. Adler and Justice Samuel Alito
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 2
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court docket, financial disclosure
Credits another outlet 0 of 2
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 2
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 20:26 UTC by Daily Caller, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Caller (court docket).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage builds the recusal around Alito’s energy stocks and the calls for him to step aside, yet it never attaches a dollar figure to those holdings. Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Caller puts his ConocoPhillips stake at up to $15,000. Readers of left-leaning accounts therefore cannot weigh the size of a financial interest in firms that are not parties to the Boulder case. Left-leaning coverage leads with activist pressure and the oil-stock fight. One left-leaning frame, in ABC News, presents the recusal as coming after "scrutiny over oil stock holdings." Right-leaning coverage leads with official silence, dwelling on a clerk’s letter that announced the withdrawal and offered no ground for it. What changed after the Court’s legal counsel advised that recusal was not required?
Bottom line

Read the left and Alito recused over oil stocks of no stated size. Read the Daily Caller and the ConocoPhillips holding is up to $15,000.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Alito's 2025 financial disclosure valued his ConocoPhillips holding at up to $15,000 and his Phillips 66 holding between $15,001 and $50,000 numberin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Michael Burger of Sher Edling was involved in the judges' climate chapter, and Sher Edling attorneys filed an amicus brief supporting local governments in Suncor contextin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • When the Court granted review it directed the parties to address whether it has statutory and constitutional jurisdiction to hear the case legal rulingin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Consumer Watchdog cited ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 shareholder disclosures warning of risks from climate lawsuits like Boulder's contextin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets present the move as a reversal after watchdog and environmental groups argued that a ruling for the defendants could benefit Alito’s other energy stocks by weakening similar climate suits nationwide. They cite Consumer Watchdog’s appeal to the Court’s ethics code — that a justice should step aside over a “subject matter or controversy” — and quote organizing director Alexandra Nagy calling the recusal “the right decision, and one he should have made from the start.” These accounts stress that a 4-4 split on the 6-3 conservative Court could leave the major legal questions unresolved, contrary to what they describe as the oil and gas industry’s hope for a broad ruling that would keep such cases out of state courts and avert billions of dollars in potential damages. They treat the earlier “inadvertently recused” episode and the May assurance that recusal was “not required” as proof he delayed a step ethics rules already demanded.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets emphasize that Alito has no stake in the named parties, that the Court had already said recusal was not required, and that Monday’s letter offered no explanation a week before argument. They juxtapose his withdrawal with unanswered calls for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse over a brief foreword to a judges’ reference manual whose climate chapter was later removed after conflict-of-interest concerns involving authors tied to plaintiffs’ lawyers; Jason Isaac of the American Energy Institute said Alito left over holdings in companies “that are not even parties to this case” while “Justice Kagan remains.” They also frame the lawsuit as a federalism dispute — and, in some allied briefing, a First Amendment concern about liability for companies’ public statements — whose 4-4 affirmance would leave Colorado’s ruling in place without a national rule. Commentators they quote say Alito has recused from energy-stock cases before, making the decision less surprising than its timing.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is appearance of impartiality: even without shares in the defendants, holdings in firms that face parallel suits and have warned investors about this litigation can look like a financial interest in the precedent, which the ethics code’s subject-matter and “reasonable person” language is meant to capture and which Alito’s 2023 recusals from related energy appeals arguably acknowledged. The right’s strongest argument is the formal party-interest line: Court counsel found no required recusal, Alito owns nothing in Exxon or Suncor, and critics who broaden the test to industry effects have not applied a comparable standard to Kagan’s association with a withdrawn climate-science chapter linked to plaintiffs’ counsel. The central unresolved tension is whether recusal turns on a financial stake in a named party or on a broader appearance of interest in an industry-wide precedent or related extra-judicial work — and whether that test is applied evenly.

9 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.