Samuel Alito Just Recused Himself From Supreme Court Case

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Jan 08, 2026 at 06:32 PM EST updated Jan 08, 2026 at 09:28 PM EST


Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a high-profile Supreme Court case involving Chevron and Louisiana parishes just days before oral arguments begin Monday.

Alito stepped aside after acknowledging a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, parent company of Burlington Resources, which remains a party in the lower court despite previously telling the justices it had withdrawn. The conservative justice initially participated when the High Court agreed over the summer to hear the dispute, but later filings prompted his withdrawal, according to a letter from Supreme Court clerk Scott Harris.

The late recusal means the case will now be argued before eight justices, raising the possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave the lower-court ruling in place without a nationwide Supreme Court precedent.

Why It Matters

At stake is where a wave of high-dollar, high-impact environmental lawsuits against major oil and gas companies will be fought: in state courts, where plaintiffs have often preferred to file, or in federal court, where defendants typically push to move the cases.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-alito-recusal-chevron-case-11332936

[displacedvermoter]

1. Recused himself cause he knows it will now be

5-3 instead of 6-3. He is a vote they don't need and he can look "righteous" and CBS can say how honorable he is.

[rzemanfl]

2. Indeed. n/t

[Scruffy1]

3. My first laugh of the day. THX. N/T.

[Marcuse]

4. His recusal should be retroactive.

[riversedge]

5. "The decision could ripple beyond coastal erosion claims, influencing how readily corporations can invoke federal jurisd

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-alito-recusal-chevron-case-11332936


The decision could ripple beyond coastal erosion claims, influencing how readily corporations can invoke federal jurisdiction when facing state-law suits tied to historic federal work—an issue that has come up repeatedly in broader climate and energy litigation.

The Supreme Court previously rejected a lawsuit from 19 Republican-led states seeking to block climate change suits filed against the oil and gas industry by Democratic-led states.

What To Know

The case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, arises from lawsuits filed by Louisiana parishes seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for alleged damage to the state’s rapidly eroding coastline. The legal question before the Supreme Court is largely procedural: whether the companies can move the parishes’ claims out of state court and into federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, based on arguments tied to federal contracts and direction—including activity linked to wartime-era production.

The dispute arrives against a backdrop of major financial exposure for the industry. In one related case, a Louisiana jury ordered Chevron to pay more than $740 million in damages connected to coastal wetlands harm—an outcome the company has appealed.

Alito’s recusal centers on Burlington Resources’ status in the litigation. According to the clerk’s letter described in court reporting, Burlington had previously indicated it had withdrawn, but later filings showed it remained a party in the lower court—prompting Alito to step aside due to his ConocoPhillips holdings.

Alito has previously recused himself in cases where his financial holdings could pose a conflict, including matters touching on the energy sector.


What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is still expected to hear oral arguments on January 12, but now with eight participating justices. If the court splits 4–4, the judgment would stand without setting a national precedent—potentially preserving the current trajectory for these Louisiana cases. It could also determine whether climate-related lawsuits remain in state courts or move to federal jurisdiction.

Either way, the ruling will be closely watched by states and local governments pursuing environmental damage claims, and by the energy industry seeking to steer those cases into federal court.
...............

[TheRickles]

6. It's not clear how large are his "holdings" in ConocoPhillips.

Does he own thousands of shares, or just a few, or a mutual fund that has CP in their portfolio, etc.? Is there a threshold above which holdings are considered to be a CoI? It's interesting in that this recusal may set a precedent for the other justices, as I"m sure many of them have this sort of conflict of interest in a wide variety of cases, though none have ever acknowledged it.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. "Open Secrets" suggests what he has (although the most recent is 2018)

Samuel A Alito



His 2024 financial disclosure (I don't think their 2025 one has been submitted yet) is here (PDF) - https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alito-Samuel-A-Annual-2024.pdf

[TheRickles]

12. Thanks. Looks like around $5M total in 2018 (via clicking on his name in blue)

I didn't see any totals form given in the 2024 disclosure. I wonder what the threshold is for being considered a Conflict of Interest.

[wolfie001]

7. Pig. Fucking christo-fascist scum

[img][/img]

[Solly Mack]

8. For show, nothing more.

Fucker is corrupt. The conservatives on the court are all corrupt.

[NotHardly]

13. THIS

[dugog55]

9. NO big deal

Roberts himself has done something similar to this a couple of times in the last 20 years. He will vote with the Liberals' side of an issue knowing full well that it still won't pass. Makes him look like he is fair and impartial. Which is complete bullshit.

[NotHardly]

14. There is nothing Supreme about these f*ckers

[Wednesdays]

11. Good. Now recuse yourself from ALL cases from now on.

I could live with that.