Justice Samuel Alito filed his annual financial disclosure months after his colleagues, revealing he still holds stock in multiple oil and gas companies, just days before hearing oral arguments in a major climate liability case.
The other eight Supreme Court justices had their financial disclosure forms posted by the Administrative Office of the Courts on June 29. Alito's arrived in late September, weeks before the Court's new term opened on October 5 with oral arguments in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case that could reshape how climate-related lawsuits against fossil fuel companies proceed. Federal judges may take up to 90 extra days beyond the standard May 15 filing deadline, and Above the Law reported that Alito takes advantage of that extension almost every year.
When the disclosure finally surfaced, it showed Alito still holds positions in ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, AES, BHP Billiton, Black Hills, OGE Energy, and Woodside Energy, all at the same value ranges as the prior year, with no sales recorded. He also reported a mineral interest in Grady County, Oklahoma, valued between $100,001 and $250,000.
The timing and the holdings raise a straightforward question: why is Alito sitting on the Suncor case at all? Federal law, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), requires a judge to step aside when he has a financial interest "in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." That statute applies to Supreme Court justices the same as any other federal judge.
Alito's own record suggests he knows the line exists. In 2023, he recused from the cert petition in the very case that became Suncor. A Court spokeswoman later told NBC News that recusal was "inadvertent." In 2025, Alito recused again from a separate petition raising the same legal question but involving different companies. And in January, he stepped out of Chevron U.S.A. v. Plaquemines Parish days before argument, specifically because of his ConocoPhillips shares.
Yet in February, Alito voted to grant cert in Suncor itself. He has not recused.
The Court spokeswoman told NBC News that Alito "does not have a financial interest in any party" in the Suncor case and that Court lawyers advised him "his recusal is not required." That distinction, no direct stake in a named party, may satisfy the letter of the Court's internal review. But the federal statute does not stop at party ownership. It covers any interest "that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
The Revolving Door Project pointed out that the oil company petitioners treated the related climate suits as connected in their own court filings. In 2022, petitioners told the justices that the Colorado suit, the one now before the Court as Suncor, was "less likely" than the others to present recusal problems. That framing concedes the cases share a common thread. If the Colorado case was merely "less likely" to trigger recusal concerns, the petitioners themselves acknowledged the concern was real across the broader set of litigation.
Watchdog groups have pressed the Senate Judiciary Committee since May to examine why Alito has not stepped aside. What action, if any, the committee has taken remains unclear. The Court's handling of recusal questions has drawn scrutiny from both sides of the aisle in recent terms, and Alito's pattern of selectively stepping aside only sharpens the focus.
Alito's recusal history carries additional weight because of a prior controversy involving hedge fund manager Paul Singer and his firm, Elliott Investment Management. Singer flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet before Alito heard a case connected to Singer's interests. Alito refused to recuse from that case, claiming he never realized Singer was involved.
Elliott Investment Management holds more than 52 million shares of Suncor, the company whose name sits atop the case Alito will hear on October 5. That connection does not automatically require recusal under the Court's own reading of the rules. But it adds another layer to a pattern that critics find difficult to dismiss as coincidence.
The broader legal landscape around climate liability suits continues to shift. AP News reported that the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Sunoco, and BP seeking to block climate change lawsuits, allowing Honolulu's case to proceed in state court. Alito recused himself from that case due to his stock holdings in affected companies. Attorneys for the oil and gas companies warned in that matter that "the stakes in this case could not be higher" and called the lawsuits "a serious threat to one of the nation's most vital industries."
If Alito's oil holdings warranted recusal from the Honolulu-related appeal, the question of why those same holdings do not warrant recusal from Suncor, a case raising parallel legal issues, deserves a clearer answer than the Court has provided.
The timing of Alito's disclosure matters beyond the holdings themselves. His eight colleagues filed on schedule. Their forms were public by late June, giving watchdog groups, journalists, and the Senate months to review potential conflicts before the fall term. Alito's late filing compressed that window to days.
Federal judges are entitled to the 90-day extension. No rule prohibits Alito from using it. But when a justice routinely delays disclosure until just before a term that includes a case touching his own portfolio, the extension stops looking like a bureaucratic convenience. The Court's internal dynamics already face heightened public attention, and a pattern of last-minute transparency does nothing to ease that scrutiny.
No binding external ethics enforcement mechanism governs the Supreme Court in the way that lower federal courts face oversight. The justices police themselves. That arrangement works only as long as the public believes the justices are policing honestly.
Alito's disclosure shows he made no effort to divest from oil and gas between filing periods. He sold nothing. He holds the same stocks at the same value ranges. He reported the same mineral interest in Oklahoma. And he is preparing to sit for oral argument in a case that could determine whether the fossil fuel industry faces billions of dollars in climate liability across dozens of state and local lawsuits.
The Court's credibility rests on the public's confidence that the justices decide cases on the law, not on their portfolios. Alito's defenders point to the Court's own legal review clearing him. His critics point to the statute, the stock certificates, and the calendar.
A justice who recused from the same case in 2023, recused from a parallel case in 2025, and stepped out of a related case in January now plans to sit for the version of that dispute scheduled for October. The Court spokeswoman called the 2023 recusal "inadvertent." If stepping aside was the accident, staying in demands an explanation that goes beyond a staff lawyer's memo.
When the rules are self-enforced and the disclosures arrive late, accountability depends entirely on the willingness of the person in the robe to hold himself to the same standard he would impose on anyone else. So far, the disclosure suggests Justice Alito is comfortable with the arrangement exactly as it stands.