Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito faces mounting pressure to recuse himself from cases affecting the oil industry, as a coalition of environmental and government accountability organizations called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate potential ethics violations.
In a letter sent Thursday, groups including the League of Conservation Voters, Center for Biological Diversity, Revolving Door Project, and True North Research flagged what they say is Alito's inconsistent approach to recusal in energy-related cases. The justice is the only member of the high court holding individual shares in oil and gas companies, with recent financial disclosures showing positions worth between $60,007 and $245,000 in ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and five other energy firms. He also maintains up to $100,000 in a Vanguard fund listing Exxon as its third-largest holding.
The scrutiny intensified after the Supreme Court agreed in February to consider a case brought by Suncor Energy and Exxon challenging whether federal law permits states and localities to sue oil companies over climate damages. Alito did not recuse himself from that decision, despite the apparent conflict. Yet in 2023, he had stepped aside when the same companies brought a similar petition in the same lawsuit.
"No judge on any court, including the high court, should be allowed to hear cases where he or she have a financial stake in those cases," said Lisa Graves, director of True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official.
The watchdog groups identified a second layer of concern: Alito's long-standing relationship with Republican billionaire Paul Singer, who founded Elliott Investment Management. Singer's fund owns more than 52 million Suncor shares worth more than $2.3 billion. In 2023, ProPublica disclosed that Alito had taken a private jet trip to Alaska funded by Singer without officially reporting it. Alito defended the arrangement in the Wall Street Journal, asserting that ethics rules did not require disclosure and that he had no duty to recuse from cases involving Singer.
The coalition characterized Alito's recent decision to participate in the Suncor petition as "an indefensible breach of ethical boundaries," especially given that a ruling favoring the companies could benefit both his personal investments and his longtime benefactor.
Alito operates within the Supreme Court's formal ethics code, adopted in 2023 after years of scandal involving several conservative justices. The code requires justices to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" but grants justices unilateral authority to determine whether they meet that standard. The code also permits justices to remain on cases if their vote is necessary to resolve the matter, a provision experts say effectively nullifies the recusal requirement at the nation's highest court.
"It's really outrageous," Graves said. "The highest court in the country should have the highest standards, not the lowest ones."
Hannah Story Brown, deputy research director at Revolving Door Project, argued that the stakes in climate litigation render any oil company holdings disqualifying. Because the outcome of each case could ripple across the entire industry, she said, Alito should adopt a blanket recusal policy for all parallel climate cases brought by state and local governments.
The Supreme Court introduced new software this year designed to flag potential conflicts by scanning the stock ticker symbols companies provide when filing cases. However, the system depends on these disclosures and does not override justices' individual recusal decisions.
It remains unclear whether Alito has divested from his oil holdings since his most recent disclosure filed last August. The next required financial report covering 2026 holdings will not be filed until next year, potentially after the Court rules on the Suncor case.
Author James Rodriguez: "Alito's argument that ethics rules don't require recusal in cases involving his financial interests or his wealthy benefactors is precisely why the Court's toothless ethics code is a public relations stunt, not actual oversight."
Comments