FOLLOW US

Nineteen years. Up to $2.9 million. And one case, set for oral arguments this October, that could determine whether fossil fuel companies can be sued for the climate effects of their products.

A new analysis of financial disclosures from the nonprofit judicial watchdog Court Accountability, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gained as much as $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests since being appointed to the high court by George W. Bush in 2005. Even under the most conservative estimate, the review found Alito's oil and gas holdings netted him close to $400,000 over that period.

A Case Arriving at an Inconvenient Time

The timing is difficult to ignore. The Supreme Court announced this month it will hear oral arguments October 5 — the opening day of its new term — in a case brought by Suncor Energy and Exxon, asking the justices to rule that federal law bars state and local governments from suing fossil fuel producers over the climate-warming effects of their products. The Trump administration, siding with the oil companies, has requested 10 minutes of argument time.

Court Accountability and other watchdog groups have called for a Senate committee to investigate Alito, the only sitting justice with direct holdings in energy companies, and have urged him to recuse himself from the case entirely. Both Alito and the Court have rejected those calls.

The Court's position rests on a narrow reading of its own ethics rules. A Supreme Court spokesperson told NBC News in May that Alito isn't required to recuse himself because his personal holdings don't include Suncor or ExxonMobil, the companies specifically named as parties in the case.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability and author of the new analysis, argues that framing misses the larger point. She said the more relevant question isn't whether Alito owns stock in the two named companies, but whether his broader financial ties to the fossil fuel industry — an industry the case could directly affect — raise legitimate doubts about his ability to weigh in impartially.

Where the Money Actually Comes From

The bulk of Alito's fossil fuel gains trace back to a single asset: a mineral interest in a property in Grady County, Oklahoma, held by his wife, Martha-Ann. According to Court Accountability's review, that holding alone generated the majority of his $390,000 to $2.9 million in oil and gas earnings.

Graves raised questions about how that property has been valued. She pointed to a 2017 sale of an adjacent plot by a relative of the Alito family for $800,000, arguing that comparable sale suggests the Alito property's actual worth should track closer to that figure — yet Alito has continued reporting its value at just $100,000 to $250,000.

The property generated two disclosed windfalls, in 2019 and 2022, each reported as rental income gains between $100,000 and $1 million. In 2022, Martha-Ann Alito agreed to lease the land to private oil and gas company Citizen Energy, a deal first reported by the Intercept. Two years later, Citizen Energy was acquired for more than $2 billion by Validus Energy — a company in which hedge fund Elliott Investment Management holds a majority stake.

That connection runs deeper than it might first appear. Elliott was founded by Paul Singer, who ProPublica previously reported had paid for a private jet trip Alito took in 2008 — a trip Alito did not disclose at the time, and later defended by saying ethics rules didn't require it. Singer's Elliott Investment Management separately owns more than 52 million shares of Suncor, valued at over $2.3 billion, according to watchdog groups.

No public records indicate a well has actually been drilled on the Oklahoma property. But the lease agreement entitles its owners to three-sixteenths of any revenue generated from oil extracted there — meaning Alito stands to benefit financially from future drilling on land tied to the same industry now appearing before his court.

An Inheritance, and a Well-Timed Sale

Beyond the Oklahoma property, a separate portion of Alito's fossil fuel wealth traces back to inheritance. In 2004, the year before he joined the Supreme Court, Alito disclosed receiving a bequest of ExxonMobil stock valued between $100,000 and $250,000 — according to Graves, the single highest-valued liquid investment listed anywhere in Alito's disclosures.

Alito has since appears to have sold that Exxon stock, based on the Supreme Court's own May statement to NBC News explaining why he wasn't required to recuse from the Suncor case. Graves questioned the ethics of that timing directly, arguing a justice shouldn't be able to offload a stock specifically to preserve his ability to sit on a related case, even after benefiting financially from that company for years.

Alito's broader portfolio includes smaller stakes in more than a dozen additional oil companies, including ConocoPhillips, its predecessor Phillips 66, Chevron and pipeline operator Kinder Morgan. Graves argued that the relevant ethical question isn't limited to whether a justice owns stock in the exact company named in a lawsuit — a reasonable person, she said, would still question a justice's impartiality if he holds a financial stake in the broader industry that stands to benefit from the case's outcome.

A Voting Record That Predates the Portfolio Questions

Alito's financial ties to the fossil fuel industry sit alongside a judicial record that has consistently favored it. In the landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, Alito was among four dissenting justices who argued greenhouse gas emissions couldn't be regulated under the Clean Air Act. In 2022's West Virginia v. EPA, he joined Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority in ruling the EPA lacked broad authority to mandate a shift away from fossil fuels. More recently, he joined the majority in two 2024 decisions overturning the longstanding Chevron doctrine, rulings that could make it harder for federal agencies to defend expansive environmental regulations going forward.

Alito hasn't avoided recusal altogether. In January, he stepped away from a lawsuit concerning Louisiana coastal degradation because of his ownership stake in ConocoPhillips, the parent company of a defendant tied to that litigation. In 2023, he also recused himself from a petition related to the same Suncor lawsuit now headed for oral arguments — though that particular recusal request was ultimately denied.

An Ethics Code With No Teeth, Critics Say

Later in 2023, amid a wave of scandals involving conservative justices, the Supreme Court adopted its first formal ethics code, which states justices should recuse themselves from cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned — while leaving that determination entirely up to each individual justice.

Graves was blunt in her assessment of that code, calling it toothless and describing it as not worth the paper it's written on. Even so, she argued that under its own stated standard, the code should in theory be enough to keep Alito off the bench for Suncor v. Boulder this October, given what she described as his financial affinity toward an industry that has directly contributed to his personal wealth.

What Happens Next

Alito is currently the only sitting justice who has not yet filed his 2025 financial disclosure, which was originally due May 15. Justices are permitted a 90-day extension; if Alito requested one, his filing would be due this Thursday. Last year, he filed in August.

The Guardian has contacted the Supreme Court and Alito directly for comment. With oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder now roughly two months away, the central question raised by Court Accountability's review remains unresolved: whether a justice with millions in fossil fuel-linked wealth will hear a case that could reshape the industry's legal exposure nationwide — and whether anyone besides Alito himself gets to decide if he should.