[[link removed]]

SCOTUS WILL HEAR EXXON’S EFFORT TO CRUSH CLIMATE LAWSUITS  
[[link removed]]


 

Emily Sanders
February 24, 2026
ExxonKnews
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Justice Samuel Alito did not recuse himself from considering the
petition, despite significant financial conflicts of interest in
implicated cases. _

, Tess Abbot

 

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted oil
companies’ request to weigh in on whether climate accountability
lawsuits are preempted by federal law — setting the stage for a
battle that could determine if dozens of similar cases are allowed to
move toward trial.

The decision means the court will hear arguments from ExxonMobil and
Suncor Energy to overturn an earlier ruling by the Colorado Supreme
Court, which decided that a case brought by Boulder, Colorado, could
move ahead in state court. You can read more about the companies’
petition in _ExxonKnews _and _DeSmog’s_ previous coverage here
[[link removed]].

Oil companies have previously and repeatedly asked the Supreme Court
to take up issues in the lawsuits, which point to growing evidence
that the companies spent decades deceiving the public about climate
change and blocked the transition to renewable energy. Since a narrow
procedural ruling
[[link removed]]
in 2021, the companies were rejected each time.

But two factors were different this time: the Trump administration
urged the justices to take the oil companies’ petition in
Boulder’s case, and Justice Samuel Alito participated in discussion
of the case, despite recusing himself in the past.

Alito owns up to $15,000 in stock
[[link removed]]
in ConocoPhillips and between $15,000 and $50,000 in Phillips 66.
Those companies are defendants in other cities’ and states’
climate lawsuits, whose fate could be determined by a ruling in
Boulder’s case.

Alito clearly acknowledged his conflict of interest in the past,
because he recused himself from considering several other appeals
related to the climate accountability lawsuits — including a nearly
identical petition
[[link removed]]
in Honolulu’s case, which the Supreme Court rejected last year
[[link removed]]. He
even recused himself in Boulder’s case
[[link removed]]
when it was brought before the high court on a jurisdictional question
in 2023.

Back then, Exxon’s lawyers argued that Boulder’s case was an
“ideal vehicle
[[link removed]]”
for Supreme Court review because it “involves a smaller group of
defendants and thus is less likely than those [other climate
deception] cases to present recusal issues.” Translation: the
companies that posed financial conflicts for some justices were not
parties in this specific case. (Amy Coney Barrett’s father was a
longtime lawyer
[[link removed]]
for Shell and had a leadership role at the American Petroleum
Institute).

Alito has not always recused
[[link removed]]
from cases that would impact companies in which he has financial
investments. When oil-funded Republican attorneys general
[[link removed]]
petitioned the court to shut down similar state lawsuits in which
ConocoPhillips and Phillips66 were defendants, he not only
participated in reviewing the request, but also joined
[[link removed]]
Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent arguing the court should have
taken it.

But Alito _did_ recuse himself
[[link removed]]
from a case the Supreme Court heard in January about oil companies’
liability for coastal damage in Louisiana, even though ConocoPhillips
and Phillips66 were not direct defendants in that case, either. That
was because ConocoPhillips is the parent company of Burlington
Resources Oil and Gas Company, a defendant in the lawsuit in the lower
courts, but not part of the oil companies’ arguments before the
Supreme Court.

According to his 2024 financial disclosure, Alito also invested
[[link removed]]
up to $100,000 in a high-dividend yield fund that listed Exxon
[[link removed]]
as its third largest holding as of January.

In 2023, the Supreme Court published an unenforceable code of conduct
[[link removed]]
which stated that a justice should recuse from hearing a case if their
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including because
that justice or their spouse has “a financial interest in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of
the proceeding.”

The code qualifies that “ownership in a mutual or common investment
fund that holds securities is not a ‘financial interest’ in such
securities unless the judge participates in the management of the
fund.” It also says that ““the rule of necessity may override
the rule of disqualification” — in other words, if a tie-breaking
vote is needed, a judge with conflicts of interest may be asked to
participate.

Lisa Graves, executive director of national investigative watchdog
group True North Research, said it was “no coincidence” that the
court took up Exxon’s plea. Between Alito’s financial ties to oil
companies, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s father’s long employment
for the oil industry
[[link removed]],
Clarence Thomas’s relationship with the Koch brothers
[[link removed]],
and the influence of Leonard Leo, who helped pick many of the justices
on today’s court and has worked hand in hand with Koch networks
[[link removed]],
the court is “captured with the help of carbon cash,” Graves said.

Exxon and Suncor have also had help from the Trump administration and
the GOP in getting their petition before the court. After an executive
order
[[link removed]]
from the President instructing the Department of Justice to block the
cases, the DOJ submitted an unsolicited brief
[[link removed]]
in support of the companies’ request. More than 100 Republican
members of Congress also filed a brief on behalf of the companies,
asking the justices
[[link removed]]
to protect the industry from cases that “would restructure the
American energy industry if not bankrupt it altogether.”

BIG OIL AND LEONARD LEO MUSTER THEIR FORCES

As some climate lawsuits have inched closer to trial, the fossil fuel
industry has gotten more desperate to stop them. “I have to win
every case that is brought,” said Exxon assistant general counsel
Justin Anderson at a November panel discussion
[[link removed]] hosted by the Federalist
Society, a conservative legal advocacy group funded in part by fossil
fuel interests and co-chaired by Leonard Leo. “They just need to
find one they can get through — and that’s why it is so important
for the Supreme Court to take this case.”

The U.S. oil lobby and their allies in state and federal government
— along with the same Leo network that helped stack the court —
have been ramping up pressure on lawmakers to pass a “liability
waiver
[[link removed]],”
or a bill that would immunize the fossil fuel industry from such
lawsuits. Last week, U.S. Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) said
[[link removed]]
she was working to draft such a bill.

At the state level, lawmakers in Utah and Oklahoma have introduced
bills
[[link removed]]
that would shield fossil fuel companies from climate liability;
Utah’s is now awaiting the governor’s signature. Those bills
appear to draw from a model bill
[[link removed]]published
by Consumer Defense, a Leonard Leo-linked project, the _New York
Times_ reported
[[link removed]].
Alliance for Consumers, another Leo-tied project, has also been behind
other broader state bills
[[link removed]]
that would limit
[[link removed]]
corporate liability. The Leo network has also pressured
[[link removed]]
the Supreme Court to step into the climate accountability cases on
behalf of oil companies.

The DOJ has also attempted
[[link removed]],
unsuccessfully
[[link removed]], to
preemptively block Michigan and Hawaiʻi from filing climate lawsuits
against fossil fuel companies.

“It’s a bad sign for sure” for the plaintiffs that the justices
took the case, said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and
senior fellow at Vermont Law School. But, Parenteau noted, the court
may not end up ruling on the preemption question at all. In their
decision to grant review, the justices said they would consider the
question of whether the court has jurisdiction over the case,
considering there has not yet been any final decision from a lower
court on its merits.

While the Trump administration has backed the industry in fighting the
lawsuits, its EPA also recently repealed the Endangerment Finding, the
scientific finding behind federal greenhouse gas regulation in the
United States. That decision could undermine
[[link removed]]
the companies’ preemption argument and open up a new front
[[link removed]]
for litigation against the fossil fuel industry.

Boulder’s lawsuit argues that the companies violated state laws like
public nuisance, trespass and conspiracy, among others, and should
help communities pay to adapt and recover from increasingly
devastating and expensive
[[link removed]]
climate disasters.

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was correct in holding that
these state law claims for in-state injuries can continue in state
court,” said Michelle Harrison of legal advocacy nonprofit
EarthRights International, who serves as co-counsel for Boulder.
“Exxon’s ever-evolving arguments as to why they should be
immunized from such claims are baseless.”

Exxon is represented in the Boulder case by Paul Weiss, a law firm
that has worked to defend a wide range of corporate clients
[[link removed]]
from liability and, last year, cut a deal to work for Trump
[[link removed]].
The firm’s longtime chairman recently resigned
[[link removed]]
after his name appeared multiple times in emails with Jeffrey Epstein.

This month, the firm notified courts in Connecticut, Hawaiʻi, Maine
and Washington state that they would no longer be representing Exxon
[[link removed]]
in pending climate lawsuits there.

Emily Sanders

Senior reporter for ExxonKnews, a project of the Center for Climate
Integrity.
ExxonKnews covers fossil fuel industry disinformation, influence, and
efforts to obstruct climate action. We’ll bring you the latest on
climate accountability efforts, in the courts and beyond.

* ExxonMobil
[[link removed]]
* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]
* Fossil Fuel
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]