Sam Alito has made up to 2.9 million from fossil fuels interests

Moral

Heisman
Dec 16, 2022
10,760
39,205
113
Analysis Says SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito Earned Millions From Oil and Gas Interests

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly made up to $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests as he prepares to vote on whether oil companies should pay for the impacts of climate change.

A new analysis of financial disclosures shows that even at the lowest range of estimates, the Supreme Court justice earned nearly $400,000 from oil and gas interests between 2005 and 2024.

The review comes as the high court prepares for a case that will decide how much power states have in holding oil companies accountable for the effects of climate change.

Oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon are seeking a ruling that would shield fossil fuel producers from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments.

While Supreme Court ethics rules require justices to recuse themselves from cases involving companies they hold stock in, Alito will not be required to recuse himself because his holdings do not specifically include Suncor and Exxon.

"The material appears to be coming from Suncor property, migrating under the Metro Wastewater property and daylighting in Sand Creek," said EPA emergency response manager Curtis Kimbel.

Suncor is asking the Supreme Court for a ruling to protect it against climate change-related lawsuits.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability who authored the new analysis, questions whether Alito will be able to remain impartial on this case and others involving fossil fuel. “You might have real appreciation for how that industry has helped make it possible for you to perhaps buy a second home on the water, or live a [certain] lifestyle,” she said.

The Trump administration has voiced its support for the oil companies.

Alito has previously voted in favor of fossil fuel interests. He recently joined the majority in overturning the Chevron doctrine, which makes it harder for agencies to defend environmental regulations. In 2007, he argued greenhouse gas emissions could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

Alito’s net worth grew significantly during his time on the Court, from around $1.1 million in 2005 to somewhere between $3.4 million and $8.4 million by 2024. A chunk of that growth—between $390,000 and $2.9 million—came specifically from oil and gas holdings, according to the watchdog Court Accountability. Most of that money traces back to a mineral interest his wife, Martha-Ann, holds on a property in Grady County, Oklahoma.

“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,” Graves told The Guardian.

Alito is not the only judge being called on to recuse himself. Conservative advocates have taken issue with Justice Elena Kagan over a foreword she authored for a science reference manual that contained a chapter on climate change. Kagan, like Alito, has made no signs she will excuse herself.

The nation’s top court will begin hearing arguments on October 5.
 

McLovin32

Heisman
Feb 1, 2008
10,727
31,159
113
Analysis Says SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito Earned Millions From Oil and Gas Interests

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly made up to $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests as he prepares to vote on whether oil companies should pay for the impacts of climate change.

A new analysis of financial disclosures shows that even at the lowest range of estimates, the Supreme Court justice earned nearly $400,000 from oil and gas interests between 2005 and 2024.

The review comes as the high court prepares for a case that will decide how much power states have in holding oil companies accountable for the effects of climate change.

Oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon are seeking a ruling that would shield fossil fuel producers from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments.

While Supreme Court ethics rules require justices to recuse themselves from cases involving companies they hold stock in, Alito will not be required to recuse himself because his holdings do not specifically include Suncor and Exxon.

"The material appears to be coming from Suncor property, migrating under the Metro Wastewater property and daylighting in Sand Creek," said EPA emergency response manager Curtis Kimbel.

Suncor is asking the Supreme Court for a ruling to protect it against climate change-related lawsuits.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability who authored the new analysis, questions whether Alito will be able to remain impartial on this case and others involving fossil fuel. “You might have real appreciation for how that industry has helped make it possible for you to perhaps buy a second home on the water, or live a [certain] lifestyle,” she said.

The Trump administration has voiced its support for the oil companies.

Alito has previously voted in favor of fossil fuel interests. He recently joined the majority in overturning the Chevron doctrine, which makes it harder for agencies to defend environmental regulations. In 2007, he argued greenhouse gas emissions could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

Alito’s net worth grew significantly during his time on the Court, from around $1.1 million in 2005 to somewhere between $3.4 million and $8.4 million by 2024. A chunk of that growth—between $390,000 and $2.9 million—came specifically from oil and gas holdings, according to the watchdog Court Accountability. Most of that money traces back to a mineral interest his wife, Martha-Ann, holds on a property in Grady County, Oklahoma.

“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,” Graves told The Guardian.

Alito is not the only judge being called on to recuse himself. Conservative advocates have taken issue with Justice Elena Kagan over a foreword she authored for a science reference manual that contained a chapter on climate change. Kagan, like Alito, has made no signs she will excuse herself.

The nation’s top court will begin hearing arguments on October 5.
I love stories like this. Just a hardworkin American man pulling himself up by the bootstraps
 

DailyBuck7

Senior
Mar 4, 2026
454
473
63
Analysis Says SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito Earned Millions From Oil and Gas Interests

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly made up to $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests as he prepares to vote on whether oil companies should pay for the impacts of climate change.

A new analysis of financial disclosures shows that even at the lowest range of estimates, the Supreme Court justice earned nearly $400,000 from oil and gas interests between 2005 and 2024.

The review comes as the high court prepares for a case that will decide how much power states have in holding oil companies accountable for the effects of climate change.

Oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon are seeking a ruling that would shield fossil fuel producers from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments.

While Supreme Court ethics rules require justices to recuse themselves from cases involving companies they hold stock in, Alito will not be required to recuse himself because his holdings do not specifically include Suncor and Exxon.

"The material appears to be coming from Suncor property, migrating under the Metro Wastewater property and daylighting in Sand Creek," said EPA emergency response manager Curtis Kimbel.

Suncor is asking the Supreme Court for a ruling to protect it against climate change-related lawsuits.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability who authored the new analysis, questions whether Alito will be able to remain impartial on this case and others involving fossil fuel. “You might have real appreciation for how that industry has helped make it possible for you to perhaps buy a second home on the water, or live a [certain] lifestyle,” she said.

The Trump administration has voiced its support for the oil companies.

Alito has previously voted in favor of fossil fuel interests. He recently joined the majority in overturning the Chevron doctrine, which makes it harder for agencies to defend environmental regulations. In 2007, he argued greenhouse gas emissions could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

Alito’s net worth grew significantly during his time on the Court, from around $1.1 million in 2005 to somewhere between $3.4 million and $8.4 million by 2024. A chunk of that growth—between $390,000 and $2.9 million—came specifically from oil and gas holdings, according to the watchdog Court Accountability. Most of that money traces back to a mineral interest his wife, Martha-Ann, holds on a property in Grady County, Oklahoma.

“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,” Graves told The Guardian.

Alito is not the only judge being called on to recuse himself. Conservative advocates have taken issue with Justice Elena Kagan over a foreword she authored for a science reference manual that contained a chapter on climate change. Kagan, like Alito, has made no signs she will excuse herself.

The nation’s top court will begin hearing arguments on October 5.
Really stupid post. The courts have no ability or expertise in managing the economy in the larger sense. The idea that the courts should be making climate change policy and developing rules for so-called climate change damages is absolutely ridiculous. It is embarrassing that uninformed people are trying to obtain climate change policies through Court actions because they cannot effectuate the change they desire through the Democratic process. Just total ignorance and bad faith by people bringing these lawsuits.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
5,156
4,968
113
Analysis Says SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito Earned Millions From Oil and Gas Interests

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly made up to $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests as he prepares to vote on whether oil companies should pay for the impacts of climate change.

A new analysis of financial disclosures shows that even at the lowest range of estimates, the Supreme Court justice earned nearly $400,000 from oil and gas interests between 2005 and 2024.

The review comes as the high court prepares for a case that will decide how much power states have in holding oil companies accountable for the effects of climate change.

Oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon are seeking a ruling that would shield fossil fuel producers from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments.

While Supreme Court ethics rules require justices to recuse themselves from cases involving companies they hold stock in, Alito will not be required to recuse himself because his holdings do not specifically include Suncor and Exxon.

"The material appears to be coming from Suncor property, migrating under the Metro Wastewater property and daylighting in Sand Creek," said EPA emergency response manager Curtis Kimbel.

Suncor is asking the Supreme Court for a ruling to protect it against climate change-related lawsuits.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability who authored the new analysis, questions whether Alito will be able to remain impartial on this case and others involving fossil fuel. “You might have real appreciation for how that industry has helped make it possible for you to perhaps buy a second home on the water, or live a [certain] lifestyle,” she said.

The Trump administration has voiced its support for the oil companies.

Alito has previously voted in favor of fossil fuel interests. He recently joined the majority in overturning the Chevron doctrine, which makes it harder for agencies to defend environmental regulations. In 2007, he argued greenhouse gas emissions could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

Alito’s net worth grew significantly during his time on the Court, from around $1.1 million in 2005 to somewhere between $3.4 million and $8.4 million by 2024. A chunk of that growth—between $390,000 and $2.9 million—came specifically from oil and gas holdings, according to the watchdog Court Accountability. Most of that money traces back to a mineral interest his wife, Martha-Ann, holds on a property in Grady County, Oklahoma.

“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,” Graves told The Guardian.

Alito is not the only judge being called on to recuse himself. Conservative advocates have taken issue with Justice Elena Kagan over a foreword she authored for a science reference manual that contained a chapter on climate change. Kagan, like Alito, has made no signs she will excuse herself.

The nation’s top court will begin hearing arguments on October 5.

Analysis Says SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito Earned Millions From Oil and Gas Interests

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reportedly made up to $2.9 million from fossil fuel interests as he prepares to vote on whether oil companies should pay for the impacts of climate change.

A new analysis of financial disclosures shows that even at the lowest range of estimates, the Supreme Court justice earned nearly $400,000 from oil and gas interests between 2005 and 2024.

The review comes as the high court prepares for a case that will decide how much power states have in holding oil companies accountable for the effects of climate change.

Oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon are seeking a ruling that would shield fossil fuel producers from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments.

While Supreme Court ethics rules require justices to recuse themselves from cases involving companies they hold stock in, Alito will not be required to recuse himself because his holdings do not specifically include Suncor and Exxon.

"The material appears to be coming from Suncor property, migrating under the Metro Wastewater property and daylighting in Sand Creek," said EPA emergency response manager Curtis Kimbel.

Suncor is asking the Supreme Court for a ruling to protect it against climate change-related lawsuits.

Lisa Graves, co-founder of Court Accountability who authored the new analysis, questions whether Alito will be able to remain impartial on this case and others involving fossil fuel. “You might have real appreciation for how that industry has helped make it possible for you to perhaps buy a second home on the water, or live a [certain] lifestyle,” she said.

The Trump administration has voiced its support for the oil companies.

Alito has previously voted in favor of fossil fuel interests. He recently joined the majority in overturning the Chevron doctrine, which makes it harder for agencies to defend environmental regulations. In 2007, he argued greenhouse gas emissions could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency.

Alito’s net worth grew significantly during his time on the Court, from around $1.1 million in 2005 to somewhere between $3.4 million and $8.4 million by 2024. A chunk of that growth—between $390,000 and $2.9 million—came specifically from oil and gas holdings, according to the watchdog Court Accountability. Most of that money traces back to a mineral interest his wife, Martha-Ann, holds on a property in Grady County, Oklahoma.

“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,” Graves told The Guardian.

Alito is not the only judge being called on to recuse himself. Conservative advocates have taken issue with Justice Elena Kagan over a foreword she authored for a science reference manual that contained a chapter on climate change. Kagan, like Alito, has made no signs she will excuse herself.

The nation’s top court will begin hearing arguments on October 5.
I don't have an opinion wrt appropriate rules of conduct for Supreme Court Justices. That said most if not all justices have a respectable investment portfolio. It's easy to look up their disclosures.

Alito $7.5 million

Kagan $4.9 million
Brown $5.4 million
Sotomayor $6.7 million

Most of their investments are in funds/ETFs but they also have a small portion in individual stocks.

The liberal justices have investments just like Alito but it looks like he owns more individual stocks. Even so they only represent 14% of his portfolio. If he made a lot of money from fossil fuels it was part of his fund holdings.
 

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,219
3,263
113
@Aardvark86
You always like to talk about the Supreme Court. Where are you at on Alito grifting for rulings?
So what's the suit where he has a stake in a party?

Literally, i don't follow everybody's investment interests, though I do know that he recuses himself a lot more than others because he does hold a lot more public stakes than others. The reality, particularly before the Supreme Court, is that the justices don't recuse themselves every time something might indirectly affect an entity because, well, let's face it, indirect effects eventually extend to every entity.

Someone above mentions oklahoma land ownership...I don't know anything about that one way or the other, or if that's the hook but my recollection is that the suit before the court about climate change damages arises out of Colorado. And somehow I'm having a hard time imagining Oklahoma bringing such a suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DailyBuck7

lucas80

Heisman
Jan 30, 2008
14,472
33,544
113
So what's the suit where he has a stake in a party?

Literally, i don't follow everybody's investment interests, though I do know that he recuses himself a lot more than others because he does hold a lot more public stakes than others. The reality, particularly before the Supreme Court, is that the justices don't recuse themselves every time something might indirectly affect an entity because, well, let's face it, indirect effects eventually extend to every entity.

Someone above mentions oklahoma land ownership...I don't know anything about that one way or the other, or if that's the hook but my recollection is that the suit before the court about climate change damages arises out of Colorado. And somehow I'm having a hard time imagining Oklahoma bringing such a suit.
This somersaulting excusing is why people have such a low opinion of the court. Even us provincials understand that when you are directly profiting from something you should recuse yourself. To a bigger point, the justices should have their money placed into a blind trust that invests in only the most bland of investments. I'd be for their salary being raised, and a guaranteed pension. Instead we have numerous justices with large conflicts of interest. If they don't want that deal, then don't take the job.
The people are beginning to understand that the Roberts court isn't looking out for them. It's looking out for the elites and for big business.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wobmam Rulez!
Tiger Illustrated

Latest

  1. 01 Tiger Illustrated Takeaways from Clemson's first scrimmage of August camp
  2. 02 Tiger Illustrated CLEMSON DEFENSIVE BACK SUFFERS SIGNIFICANT INJURY
  3. 03 Tiger Illustrated CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Saturday pre-scrimmage nuggets
  4. 04 Tiger Illustrated SUMMER UPDATE: Bryant Wesco
  5. 05 Tiger Illustrated CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Intel on Ari Watford + O-line nuggets