politics
Supreme Court Justice Will Not Recuse From Upcoming Climate Change Case
A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the justice has no financial interest in the parties to an upcoming case involving energy companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy and a Colorado climate lawsuit. The justice was advised that recusal is not required. Liberal groups asked a Senate committee to investigate, citing the justice's stock holdings in other oil companies.
May 15, 12:00 PM·2m read1 source
Nbc NewsAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
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.
