Justice Samuel Alito is rejecting pressure to recuse himself from an upcoming Supreme Court case involving energy companies and climate liability, with a court spokeswoman confirming he has cleared the conflict bar under current ethics rules.
The case, slated for argument and decision in the term starting in October, centers on whether ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy can scrap a Colorado lawsuit seeking damages for climate-related harms. Alito's participation has drawn fire from left-leaning advocacy groups who argue his past stock holdings in the energy sector create an appearance of bias that undermines public trust in the court.
"Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party" to the case, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said, noting that the court's legal counsel advised him that "his recusal is not required." Current ethics guidelines require justices to step aside only when they have a direct conflict, such as owning stock in a party to the case, maintaining a personal relationship with those involved, or having worked on the matter before joining the bench.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Alliance for Justice, and other groups asked the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday to investigate Alito's role, pointing to his historical holdings in oil companies ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, along with five other energy sector firms. According to his most recent financial disclosure filing, Alito does not currently own shares in either ExxonMobil or Suncor.
Alito's decision creates a puzzling turn from his own earlier actions in the same litigation. In 2023, he recused himself when the court rejected an earlier appeal in the Colorado case, along with similar petitions involving other energy companies in which he did hold stock. The court spokeswoman characterized that as an "inadvertent" recusal that occurred because the cases were considered simultaneously.
Critics argue the cases are inseparable. Hannah Story Brown, deputy research director at the Revolving Door Project, noted that oil company petitioners have explicitly told the court the cases are linked in their filings. "There is no reason for Justice Alito to view them otherwise," she said.
A successful outcome for the energy companies could have sweeping implications beyond the parties immediately involved. If the Supreme Court blocks Colorado's lawsuit, it could eliminate similar state-law climate damage claims nationwide, benefiting the broader fossil fuel industry.
Liberal groups invoked another provision of the ethics guidelines requiring justices to step aside if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" by an informed observer aware of all facts. The ethics code adopted in 2023 attempted to address prior complaints of ethical breaches.
The court's ethics framework creates tension between competing principles. While guidelines counsel recusal when impartiality is in question, they also impose a duty on justices to participate because, unlike lower court judges, they cannot be replaced by another justice if everyone recuses.
Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a court watchdog group, drew a distinction between what the law permits and what it should allow. "Stock ownership in one oil company does not require recusal in every case involving the oil industry," he said, but added that justices should not own individual stocks at all, calling on Congress to impose a blanket ban.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The gap between the letter of ethics rules and public expectations has never been wider, and Alito's refusal to step aside exposes how those rules protect the institution at the expense of its credibility."
Comments