Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stepped back from a big case involving major oil companies. This case, known as “City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al.,” began with a ruling from Hawaii’s highest court. That ruling said that state laws could hold big oil and gas companies accountable for hiding their impact on climate change, even if federal laws don’t. Alito decided not to be involved, likely because he owns stock in some of these energy companies.

In response to this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has requested the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General to submit a brief expressing the government’s views. Chevron, one of the defendants in the case, emphasized the importance of Supreme Court review, asserting that state and local lawsuits against Big Oil violate federal law and interfere with energy policy.

Numerous lawsuits against major fossil fuel companies have been filed by attorneys general, municipal governments, and tribal governments, alleging deception regarding climate change impacts. Justice Alito’s recusal is linked to his ownership of stock in companies involved in these suits, such as ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.

Advocates for climate action argue that these lawsuits are essential for holding Big Oil accountable for its role in climate change and the damages incurred by communities. They emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in the fossil fuel industry.

Conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, have faced calls for recusal from similar cases due to perceived conflicts of interest. Justice Alito’s past recusals and stock divestment actions have drawn attention, with some legal maneuvers suggesting strategies to navigate potential conflicts of interest.

Reports indicate a pressure campaign by right-wing proponents of fossil fuel companies with ties to conservative legal advocacy groups. This highlights the political and ideological dimensions surrounding the legal battles between environmental advocates and the fossil fuel industry.