Supreme Court Justice Will Not Recuse From Upcoming Climate Change Case

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said a justice facing calls to step aside from a major upcoming case involving climate change has no conflict that would require recusal. The spokeswoman stated that the justice does not have a financial interest in any party involved in the case.

The court's legal counsel advised that recusal is not required, according to a statement provided to NBC News. A group of left-leaning organizations on Thursday asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the justice's involvement. The groups cited in part the justice's stock holdings in energy companies.

The case, set to be argued and decided in the court's next term that starts in October, concerns an attempt by energy companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to dismiss a lawsuit in Colorado seeking damages for harms related to climate change. The justice does not own stock in either ExxonMobil or Suncor Energy, according to the most recent financial disclosure report filed last year.

The report shows holdings in oil companies ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 as well as five other firms involved in the energy sector.

2023, the justice did recuse from an earlier appeal in the Colorado case. On the same day, the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. The justice also did not participate in those cases.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the justice was inadvertently recused in the earlier Colorado case because it was considered at the same time as other cases where the justice did have a financial interest in the parties. One of the groups that signed the letter responded that there is wide understanding that all the cases on the issue are intertwined.

The oil company petitioners have been explicit in court filings that they view the cases as linked. The upcoming case could benefit energy companies more broadly if the court blocks lawsuits brought under state laws like the one in Colorado.

Under the Supreme Court's ethics guidelines, justices are not required to step aside unless there is a direct conflict such as stock ownership in a party, a personal relationship or prior involvement in the case before appointment to the court. The letter from the groups also cited a provision stating that justices should recuse if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned by an unbiased and reasonable person aware of all relevant circumstances.

The guidelines state, however, that justices generally have a duty to participate in cases because, unlike lower courts, they cannot be replaced. The latest code of conduct was introduced in 2023 following allegations of ethics lapses. Under current law, stock ownership in one oil company does not require recusal in every case involving the oil industry.