Watchdog groups are urging the Senate to investigate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over potential ethics violations related to his ownership of oil company stocks. In a letter sent Thursday, a coalition of organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Revolving Door Project, and True North Research, called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine Alito's participation in cases that could benefit the oil industry.
The groups argue that Alito, the only Supreme Court justice with holdings in energy companies, may be violating court ethics codes by not recusing himself from relevant cases. "His irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases is undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court," the letter states.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court agreed in February to hear a case brought by oil majors Suncor Energy and Exxon, marking the first time the court has taken up such a challenge. The companies argue that federal law prevents subnational governments from suing oil and gas companies for the climate-warming effects of their products. The court did not disclose which justices supported hearing the case, and Alito did not recuse himself.
Lisa Graves, a former senior Justice Department official who now directs True North Research, emphasized that no judge should hear cases where they have a financial stake. In 2023, Alito recused himself from a similar petition by the same companies, which was denied.
Financial Disclosures
Alito's most recent financial disclosure, filed in August 2024 and covering 2024, shows holdings in individual stocks worth between $60,007 and $245,000 in ConocoPhillips, Phillips66, and five other oil and energy companies. He also has up to $100,000 invested in a Vanguard fund where Exxon is the third-largest holding. The groups assert that these holdings should compel Alito to recuse himself from the Boulder case and parallel state climate deception cases.
It is unclear whether Alito has sold any of his oil and gas stocks since the disclosure. In January, the Supreme Court's clerk notified parties in a case involving fossil fuel industry responsibility for Louisiana coastline damage that Alito owned ConocoPhillips stock. He recused himself just days before oral arguments.
Additional Conflict of Interest
The watchdog groups also highlight Alito's relationship with Republican billionaire donor Paul Singer, founder of Elliott Investment Management, which owns over 52 million shares of Suncor worth more than $2.3 billion. ProPublica reported in 2023 that Alito failed to disclose a private jet ride to Alaska for a fishing trip paid for by Singer in 2008. Alito defended the trip in the Wall Street Journal, stating that ethics rules did not require disclosure or recusal.
The letter states: "Alito's decision to reverse course and participate in granting the companies' most recent petition – when a finding in favor of the companies could directly and indirectly benefit both himself and his billionaire friend – is an indefensible breach of ethical boundaries."
Ethics Code and Enforcement
In 2023, the Supreme Court adopted its first formal ethics code in response to scandals involving senior right-wing justices. The code requires recusal when "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" but allows justices to make that decision themselves. Experts have criticized the code as toothless due to the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Unlike standards for other federal judges, it permits justices to stay on cases if their vote is necessary to resolve the matter.
Graves noted that Alito might argue he is needed to resolve the Suncor case. "It's really outrageous. The highest court in the country … should have the highest standards, not the lowest ones," she said.
The court also introduced new software this year to scan filings for potential conflicts of interest, requiring parties to list stock-ticker symbols for involved companies. However, Hannah Story Brown, deputy research director at the Revolving Door Project, argued that any holdings in oil companies should disqualify justices from weighing in on related lawsuits. "A blanket refusal is the only consistently ethical option for Alito when faced with any of these parallel cases," she said.
