Consumer Watchdog Urges Alito Recusal in Climate Deception Case

Justice Alito maintains individual investments in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, companies that explicitly warned shareholders in recent financial disclosures that climate deception litigation poses a material risk to their business and stock value. ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are defendants in approximately two dozen active climate cases, many of which share the same legal claims at issue in the Suncor petition. While the Supreme Court previously stated that Alito lacks a financial interest in any party to the proceeding, advocates argue this ignores the Court’s broader Code of Conduct, which mandates recusal when a justice holds a financial stake in the subject matter of a case.

Industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, have told the Court that a favorable ruling in the Boulder case could effectively terminate similar climate tort lawsuits across the country. This creates a scenario where the Justice is asked to rule on a matter that could directly mitigate the financial risks his own companies have identified to shareholders. Although Alito previously recused himself from earlier iterations of the Boulder litigation and other related climate cases, he remains on the docket for the October 5 arguments. The situation is further complicated by the Justice’s family mineral interests in Oklahoma, which were leased to a firm later acquired by a company majority-owned by Suncor investor Paul Singer.