Government watchdog groups are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has violated the court’s ethics code by refusing to step back from a case that could benefit the oil and gas industry.
In a letter obtained by POLITICO, a coalition of groups that include the League of Conservation Voters and the Center for Biological Diversity say Alito — who, uniquely among the justices, directly holds stock in oil and gas companies — did not recuse himself from hearing the industry’s latest attempt to toss out a swath of climate lawsuits filed against fossil fuel producers.
Alito had recused himself from a 2023 petition in the same case and from a 2025 petition on the same issue involving other companies. He did not explain his reversal, and court guidelines do not require him to do so.
The Supreme Court did not return questions for Alito about his holdings or this case.
“It’s important to shine a light on what’s been happening here,” said Lisa Graves, a former senior Justice Department official and executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research. The group partnered with the executive branch ethics watchdog group Revolving Door Project to send the letter Tuesday to top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Graves called it “hugely problematic” that Alito holds investments that could be affected by the climate case.
“Judges should not be ruling on cases where their ruling could benefit themselves financially,” she said. “That’s just a core principle of judicial ethics.”
The court adopted a formal ethics code in 2023 for the first time in its history, following reports about undisclosed luxury travel by justices and influence campaigns aimed at the court.
The code formalizes when justices should recuse themselves from cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It allows the justices to make the decision, “rather than the Court.”
The court also recently changed its rules to require filers to list stock symbols for companies involved in cases so that new software being used by the court can help identify conflicts.
Graves said the code is “toothless and basically meaningless since it’s not enforceable.” And she said it sets a lower recusal standard than for other federal judges by allowing Supreme Court justices to stay on cases if their vote is necessary to resolve the case.
She called it a “completely bogus notion” to allow justices to sit on cases where they have a conflict “if their vote is needed.”
Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and several other lawmakers sent the letter did not return requests for comment. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the panel’s ranking member, said the letter reiterates why the Supreme Court needs to be more transparent with the public.
“It also highlights the need for an enforceable code of conduct to ensure justices do the right thing when it comes to recusals and other ethics issues — and to ensure public confidence in the Court,” Durbin said in a statement.
Democratic legislation that would require justices to publicly explain their recusals, impose enforceable ethical rules, and create ethics and investigative offices within the Supreme Court have made little progress in recent years.
Energy holdings
Alito’s most recent financial disclosure, which covers 2024, showed between $60,000 and $245,000 in holdings in seven energy and natural resources companies: AES Corp., BHP Billiton, Black Hills Corp., ConocoPhillips, OGE Energy, Phillips 66 and Woodside Energy.
The letter also notes that Alito has significant sums in a Vanguard exchange-traded fund, or ETF, that has invested heavily in Exxon Mobil.
Alito did not recuse himself when the court in February agreed to take up a case brought by oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon. The companies want the justices to find that federal law precludes local governments from filing lawsuits against fossil fuel producers for the effects of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Alito had recused himself in 2023 from considering a petition brought by the same companies in the case, and that request — which requires the votes of four judges — was denied.
It is possible that Alito has sold off his oil and gas holdings since 2024, which could resolve any conflict of interest. Prior disclosures show Alito sometimes buys and sells holdings. Alito has not yet filed his 2025 disclosure, and won’t have to report his 2026 activities until next year, potentially after the court has already ruled in the Suncor case.
The Suncor petition, which stems from a lawsuit filed against the companies by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, is one of dozens from local governments that want fossil fuel companies to pay for the costs of dealing with climate change.
Suncor and Exxon, which has been named in most of the climate cases, noted in a 2022 Supreme Court filing that the Colorado lawsuit was “uniquely positioned” because it involved a smaller group of companies than the other climate liability cases “and thus is less likely than those cases to present recusal issues.” The court declined to get involved at that stage of proceedings.
The letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee notes that since the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, oil company defendants have pushed courts to delay other lawsuits, arguing that the outcome at the Supreme Court could affect their cases.
“As these parallel state climate deception cases are undeniably interlinked, and due to Justice Alito’s vested interests in the oil and gas industry … the only ethical option for Justice Alito is a blanket recusal from participating in any one of them,” the letter states.
When Alito previously recused himself, the letter says, “he demonstrated an implicit recognition of that ethical line. Now he has overstepped it without justification.”
The letter also points to Alito’s ties to billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who runs the hedge fund Elliott Investment Management. The West Palm Beach firm owns more than 52 million shares of Suncor, worth more than $2.3 billion.
The letter notes that Alito acknowledged — after a ProPublica report — that he took a private jet trip to Alaska for a fishing trip in 2008 courtesy of Singer that was not reported on his disclosure form.
“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,” the groups write in the letter.
In addition to LCV and CBD, signatories on the letter include Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthworks and Friends of the Earth US, as well as broader government accountability groups such as the Center for Progressive Reform, MoveOn and Demand Progress.
Alito also owns stocks in nonenergy companies, including Dow, DuPont de Nemours, 3M, Boeing, Molson Coors, Procter & Gamble and PNC Bank, among others.
The only other member of the court to own direct stocks is Chief Justice John Roberts, who has holdings in two companies, life science research company Thermo Fisher and semiconductor manufacturing equipment-maker Lam Research.
