A coalition of conservative legal organizations has called for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, accusing her of violating federal ethics rules by refusing to recuse herself from a major climate change case scheduled for arguments next term.

Ethics Complaint Targets Justice’s Prior Statements

The conservative groups sent a letter Monday to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders demanding an investigation into whether Kagan compromised her impartiality in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. The case centers on whether Colorado local governments can use state law to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for their alleged contributions to climate change. The coalition argues Kagan publicly endorsed legal theories central to the dispute through her involvement with a judicial reference manual on scientific evidence.

Kagan wrote the foreword to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which included a climate science chapter that Republican lawmakers and attorneys general later criticized as biased. The chapter was subsequently removed from the version distributed to federal judges. In her foreword, Kagan specifically noted that judges would increasingly confront lawsuits involving climate science and encouraged them to use the manual as a resource for evaluating scientific evidence.

Pattern of Questionable Recusal Decisions

Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino stated that Kagan’s conflicts of interest on climate litigation prevent her from serving as the neutral arbiter required by her oath. Severino emphasized that by endorsing a manual featuring an overtly biased climate science chapter, Kagan embraced the partisan ideals and legal theories driving state and local climate lawfare against energy companies.

The letter also highlights what the coalition describes as a history of inconsistent recusal decisions by Kagan. The groups cite her participation in the landmark Affordable Care Act case despite serving as solicitor general during the Obama administration while the law was being defended. They also reference American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock and United States v. Briones, where the Supreme Court later acknowledged she should have recused herself due to her prior involvement in the executive branch.

What This Means

The conservative coalition argues that public confidence in the judiciary depends on justices stepping aside whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The request mirrors recent scrutiny of Supreme Court ethics by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023 and 2024, when the committee was under Democratic control. The investigation demand comes as the high court prepares to hear arguments in a case that could significantly impact efforts by state and local governments to use litigation to address climate change through the court system.