Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
A new analysis suggests that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gained as much as $2.9 million in assets from growth in stocks relating to the oil and gas industry over the course of the past two decades.
The analysis from the nonprofit watchdog group Court Accountability found that Alito’s assets (not including his personal housing properties) expanded by between $3.4 million and as much as $8.4 million between 2005 and 2024. Between $390,000 and $2.9 million of that growth was from companies involved in oil and gas extraction, the report noted.
Supreme Court justices are supposed to recuse themselves from cases if they have a direct interest in the outcome. (Members of the court decide for themselves whether recusal is warranted, without any body or other justices overseeing the process.) Even with the minimum possible figure earned by Alito during that time, the outcome of cases relating to the fossil fuel industry could have significant financial benefits for him.
Notably, Alito did recuse from a case involving the fossil fuel industry in the court’s last term. But it was a convenient move for him, as the case resulted in a unanimous 8-0 decision from the other justices. It’s possible that Alito made the decision to recuse knowing that the outcome of the case would likely be in his favor.
This upcoming term, a case involving state regulations of fossil fuel companies is set to be heard. Alito is refusing to recuse from the case, citing the fact that he does not have stock ownership in the companies involved.
However, the outcome of the ruling — whether states can regulate the industry when the federal government does not — will likely still have a bearing on the performance of his stocks.
“A reasonable person would think if you’re invested in the industry that could benefit from the outcome of a lawsuit, then you could personally stand to benefit from the outcome, even if you don’t hold the stock in the specific company that happens to be the named plaintiff,” said Lisa Graves, author of the analysis and co-founder of Court Accountability, explaining the situation to The Guardian.
According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted in July, most Americans feel that the Supreme Court ended on a sour note, with only 36 percent of respondents giving positive approval numbers to the institution. Meanwhile, 50 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the court’s actions last term. Alito himself had a -7 point approval rating in the poll.
Press freedom is under attack
As Trump cracks down on political speech, independent media is increasingly necessary.
Truthout produces reporting you won’t see in the mainstream: journalism from the frontlines of global conflict, interviews with grassroots movement leaders, high-quality legal analysis and more.
Our work is possible thanks to reader support. Help Truthout catalyze change and social justice — make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation today.