Samuel Alito Does the Right Thing for a Change

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself Monday from a major climate change case coming up on the court’s docket.

Alito’s decision was revealed via a letter issued to the lawyers involved in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which pits ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy against the commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado as the two oil companies attempt to throw out a county lawsuit seeking climate-change related damages.

“Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case,” read a letter written by court clerk Scott Harris.

The letter did not elaborate as to why Alito decided to remove himself from the October 5 hearing, though he had faced mounting pressure from progressive groups such as Consumer Watchdog to step down from the case due to his personal investments in oil companies. Alito does not hold stocks in either ExxonMobil or Suncor Energy, but instead has investments in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, which are involved in similar lawsuits around the country and are likely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s eventual decision in Suncor.

The decision is a remarkable aboutface for the conservative justice, who previously told NBC News (via a court spokesperson) that he saw no need to withdraw himself from the legal proceedings.

“Justice Alito’s recusal from Suncor v. Boulder is the right decision, and one he should have made from the start,” said Alexandra Nagy, organizing director with Consumer Watchdog, in a statement. “The public should not have to wonder whether a justice’s personal investments could benefit from a ruling that shields the fossil-fuel industry from liability.”

Alito’s recusal, however, will force the nation’s highest judiciary into an eight-person bench, raising the possibility of a 4-4 split on the matter.

Alito is the only justice in the court with a wide stock portfolio, according to a Bloomberg report published earlier this month. Either Alito or his wife owns tens of thousands of stock positions in dozens of individual companies, making him a standout on the bench. The only other member managing individual stocks is Chief Justice John Roberts, who has maintained investments in just two companies (Lam Research Corporation and Thermo Fisher Scientific).

In a legal petition to the Supreme Court, attorneys for Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil argued that state law does not preempt federal law on issues related to greenhouse gas emissions, and that states do not have the constitutional right to seek relief for “injuries allegedly caused by pollution emanating from outside the State.”

But this preemption case is not like others that the court has recently heard, in no small part due to the Trump administration’s decision to pare back the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency.

“One argument on the other side is that allowing states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the objectives of federal law,” penned Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law, in a piece last week for SCOTUSBlog. “But as the county commissioners of Boulder County and the city of Boulder argue in their brief, the EPA recently has denied that it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”

“As they say: There is no explanation ‘how the Court can hold that the Clean Air Act preempts claims indirectly relating to greenhouse-gas emissions when EPA maintains that the Act does not allow it to directly regulate some (perhaps any) greenhouse-gas emissions.’”

This story has been updated.

A group of defendants prosecuted for their actions in the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection are suing the federal government, claiming that their rights were violated. 

One defendant, Lisa Eisenhart, claims that she was “targeted, arrested, prosecuted, and punished because of her constitutionally protected expressive and associational activity as a member of the protesters who gathered at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”  

That claim belies the fact that the January 6 rioters did more than just exercise their First Amendment rights. Police officers were assaulted, windows were broken, congressional property was stolen, and offices in the Capitol were extensively vandalized. 

Eisenhart, a former nurse from Georgia who wore a tactical vest that day, got further inside the Capitol than most of her fellow rioters, and allegedly encouraged rioters to fight with police. She was joined by her son, Eric Munchel, a Nashville, Tennessee, bartender who became known as “zip-tie guy” because he was carrying plastic wrist restraints that he likely took from a police checkpoint inside the building. He also was wearing black tactical gear. 

Munchel was sentenced to 57 months in prison, while Eisenhart got 30 months. In her lawsuit, she says that the federal government, “through retaliatory prosecution, discriminatory detention practices, deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s health and safety, and other unlawful conduct…violated [her] constitutional rights and caused severe physical, emotional, reputational, and economic injury.”

President Trump ended up pardoning every single January 6 participant shortly after he was sworn into office in 2025, including Eisenhart and her son. But now, she and other January 6 rioters are demanding money and restitution. Evidently facing consequences for their actions was a step too far.

President Donald Trump once again struggled to keep his eyes open Monday, just moments after unveiling a plan to build a new $15 billion steel plant in eastern Iowa.

As Energy Secretary Chris Wright launched into an explanation of the administration’s industrialization agenda and new partnership with Mesabi Metallics, Trump’s eyes shut and his head drooped forward.

Rewant Ruia, the chairman of Mesabi, expressed his excitement about the project, while Trump kept his eyes closed and neck slack. As Ruia spoke, Trump angled his face toward the executive, but his eyelids continued to flutter open and closed.

When answering questions from reporters, Trump sounded truly exhausted. The president’s responses were quiet and short, and his speech was slurred.

In addition to falling asleep during some major announcements, Trump has also appeared to nod off during signing ceremonies, Cabinet meetings, Senator Lindsey Graham’s funeral, and the 9/11 memorial at the Pentagon, to name a few.

For years, Trump’s entourage has boasted about the president’s supposedly endless supply of energy, but over the course of his first two years back in office, the president has repeatedly exhibited bizarre conduct in the public eye. Not only does that include taking naps during public events, but also erratic behavior, slurred speech, appearing lost or disoriented, and sporting mysterious bruises. Trump’s behavior has spurred calls for health examinations from medical experts, politicians, and voters fearful of the president’s apparent cognitive decline.

President Trump had an even more extreme plan to restrict mail-in voting before the Supreme Court intervened, according to reporting from ProPublica.

Several sources familiar with the plan told ProPublica that Trump planned to require all ballots to be delivered through certified mail. That means anyone who wanted to vote by mail would be required to personally sign to receive their ballots—potentially penalizing the voting rights of millions of Americans simply for not being home.

This was a core tenet of one of the earlier versions of the president’s restrictive executive order, which was blocked by the Supreme Court in August. The final version omitted the certified mail requirement, instead simply requiring the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail-in voters through a massive national database.

The certified mail rule was given up on after internal opposition from postal service officials. The rule would have deputized postal workers, ultimately giving them the final decision as to who should and shouldn’t get a ballot based on whether or not they answered the door to sign for their ballot. For some reason, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick would have had control over the effort.

This comes in the wake of reports that Postmaster General David Steiner wants to resign, as he seems unwilling to be at the center of Trump’s baseless election fraud crusade ahead of November midterms.

House Speaker Mike Johnson cares so little about Americans that he’s pretending that public opinion is really the result of brainwashing by the Chinese government.

Speaking on Fox Business Monday, Johnson agreed with host Cheryl Casone’s assertion that the public pushback to artificial intelligence data centers was “coming from China” and being seized on by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.

“This is what Democrats do. Every election cycle they find something to glom onto and say that this is doom and gloom and everyone will die if we don’t win,” Johnson said. “Don’t buy it. This is a Chinese psyop. I really believe that. That’s not a conspiracy theory.”

Both Chinese and Russian actors have reportedly tried to inflame public discourse around AI data centers. Jessica Brandt, a former official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who tracked foreign influence efforts during the Biden administration, previously told The New York Times that this doesn’t make Americans’ concerns any less real.

“Foreign actors aren’t manufacturing American debates over the future of AI, they are exploiting them,” Brandt told the Times, adding that the objective was to “deepen our divisions in order to dent our appeal and weaken us from within.”

Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose data center construction in their communities, while half believe that the construction of new data centers is a bad thing for the country, according to a recent YouGov poll.

The results of that public opinion have been tangible. Over the past six months, the United States has seen a massive mobilization against data centers. Nearly 120 projects valued at an estimated $198 billion were blocked or delayed as states and communities nationwide imposed moratoriums on data center development, according to Data Center Watch.

Johnson has made it pretty clear that he’s not willing to have any daylight with President Donald Trump, an outspoken supporter of the AI industry. Meanwhile, in the Louisiana Republican’s home state, Amazon and Meta plan to spend a combined $72 billion on the construction of new AI data centers. A local health official warned that the projects threaten to increase the harmful toxic exposure from gas-fired plants required to power them.