Samuel Alito, with his investment portfolio under intense scrutiny, recuses himself from major climate-change case that could impact the fossil fuel industry

(WMUR-TV, Facebook)

In yesterday's post we outlined signs that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is a "dysfunctional mess" -- and that is a kind descriptive; a better, and more blunt, term is "corrupt." How did we reach this conclusion? It grew from our analysis of a ruling the high court issued last Friday in a case styled Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters.

What did SCOTUS do to draw our ire? It granted authority over U.S. midterms to president Donald Trump that the law does not allow. Does this raise the specter of Trump trying to rig midterms? The answer is yes, it already has. The Democracy Docket website, headed by Democratic Party election lawyer Marc Elias, wrote an article earlier this month under the headline "Here is Trump's blueprint to rig the 2026 midterms. How's that for subtlety?

Today, we have more news that suggests the nation's highest court, with all of its pomp and circumstance, is a morass, a cesspool, a quagmire, a . . . well, you get the idea. The news comes to us via a jointly published article at Forbes and Yahoo! News under the headline "Samuel Alito recuses from major Supreme Court case after Fossil Fuel Investments come under fire." Alison Durkee writes: 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will not hear an upcoming environmental case, the court told lawyers Monday, unexpectedly making the move following pressure to recuse from the case over concerns he could use it to boost his own investments in the oil and gas industry. 

The Supreme Court's clerk wrote to lawyers in the case, Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, on Monday, informing them that Alito "has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case."

The case, for which the court will hear oral arguments on Oct. 5, concerns questions over whether lawsuits can be brought in state court that seek to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change.  

Watchdog and left-leaning groups have been urging Alito to recuse himself in the case, pointing to the justice's significant investments in oil, gas, and energy companies that would benefit from a Supreme Court ruling making it harder for such companies to be held liable.

Has Alito done anything wrong in the Suncor case? Has he violated ethics rules, engaged in possible criminal conduct? Based on information we have so far, the answer is no. But that does not mean Alito, who answers to the title "Your Honor," has acted honorably. He did not reach the decision to recuse on his own; it came only after advocacy groups put pressure on him. And as Durkee notes, his initial reaction was to dilly-dally around the edges of the standard for recusal that applies to all federal judges:

Alito had so far refused to recuse himself from the case because he doesn't hold investments in the two companies directly involved in the lawsuit, Suncorp Energy and Exxon Mobil, with a spokesperson for the court previously telling NBC News that Alito "does not have a financial interest in any party" involved in the case and was advised by legal counsel that "his recusal is not required."

That, however, is not the standard -- as Alito surely knows. The issue is covered under 28 U.S. Code 455, which holds "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Alito might not have a financial interest in the parties involved, but that is not the issue here. He has been investing long enough and his returns have been lucrative enough to give him the portfolio of a serious investor. Forbes values Alito's net worth at approximately $10 million, making him the second-richest justice on the court behind Chief Justice John Roberts A report at Mother Jones gives an idea of the oil and gas-related wealth Alito has accumulated:

Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito gained up to $2.9 million from his fossil fuel interests between 2005 and 2024, a new review of financial disclosures shows.

The analysis from the nonprofit advocacy group and judicial watchdog Court Accountability, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that even at the lowest range of estimates, Alito gained almost $400,000 from his oil and gas interests since being tapped for the high court by George W. Bush in 2005 and joining the court in 2006.

In short, Alito's financial interest goes to the entire fossil-fuel industry, not just any two parties to a case. That's why he should have known, in the interests of justice, his recusal was required. Durkee provides more insight into Alito's financial interests as they relate to fossil-fuel companies:

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Suncorp Energy on Oct. 5. It's unclear when the court could issue its final ruling, but it will likely be in a few months, and will come out before the court's term ends in late June 2027. The court's ruling will not directly hold Suncorp and Exxon liable for any impact on climate change, but will rather more broadly determine whether such lawsuits can be brought in state court to begin with.

The big number here is $175,000. That's roughly how much Alito has in investments in the fossil-fuel industry, with financial disclosures showing he has  between $175,00 and $575,000 in returns. The justice holds investments in ConocoPhillips, Woodside Energy Group, and AES Corp that were each valued at up to $15,000, his disclosures covering his 2025 finances show, and investments in Phillips 66, OGE Energy Corp, Black Hills Corp, BHP Group, and Fortis Inc that were each valued between $15,001 and $50,000. Alito and his wife also own a mineral interest in land in Grady County, Oklahoma, valued between $100,001 and $250,000, according to his disclosures. The Alitos reportedly receive a percentage of oil and gas sales made off of fossil fuels that are extracted on their land. Alito has long held interests in fossil fuel companies, including at one point holding Exxon stock, and an analysis of his financial disclosures by judicial watchdog group Court Accountability found the justice has made up to $2.9 million off his fossil fuel investments between 2005 and 2024 alone.

All of this raises an important question: Is it OK for Supreme Court justices to own stocks? The answer is yes, Durkee reports:

There is no prohibition on Supreme Court justices owning individual stocks, though financial disclosures suggest Alito and Roberts are the only ones that do. Ethics guidelines direct justices to recuse from any cases in which they have a financial interest, but there have been a number of instances in which justices have—often inadvertently—failed to properly recuse. Justices do not face any clear penalties for not recusing, as unlike lower-court judges, Supreme Court justices are encouraged to follow ethical guidelines but do not face any consequences if they refuse. This is not the first time Alito's stock holdings have raised scrutiny, as the justice has also faced controversies like a disclosure showing he sold shares of Anheuser-Busch in Aug. 2023. That was around the time the company came under fire for partnering with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Law Dork first noted, raising questions over whether the justice participated in a right-wing boycott against Bud Light.

It probably has not helped Alito's cause that he has been involved in a number of ethics-related dustups in recent years. It seems safe to say that advocacy groups on the left are not fond of Alito's conservative views and put a close watch on his activities. From the Forbes/Yahoo! article:

Alito's decision to recuse comes as the conservative-leaning justice has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years over potential ethics issues. Alito came under fire following reports in 2024 on him and his wife flying flags outside their home associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement, for instance, and The New York Times reported in 2022 that a conservative activist knew the ruling in 2014's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby before it came out after dining with the Alitos, raising speculation over whether the justice had leaked the ruling. Alito has denied any wrongdoing and has railed against the ethics criticism he's received, including by penning a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "ProPublica Misleads Its Readers" in 2023 before the outlet reported he took a luxury fishing trip with billionaire Paul Singer without disclosing it. The Supreme Court has faced a series of broader ethics concerns in recent years that have sparked a push by Democrats to impose a binding code of ethics on the court. Republicans have broadly opposed Democrats' efforts in Congress, however, and the court has declined to impose its own ethical code.

The Alito contretemps is not the only recent example of financial chicanery tied to a Supreme Court justice. We will report on another one in an upcoming post, and it makes you wonder if anyone on the court -- aside from the three liberals -- acts with any integrity.

Trump bullies his way into a controversy where the law says he does not belong, and a spineless Supreme Court allows a president to have his way despite reports that he plans to rig the midterms

(Sen. Alex Padilla, Facebook)

It has been evident for months that Donald Trump is determined to exercise authority over U.S. elections that the law does not allow him. Over the weekend, we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is fine with Trump exercising whatever authority he wishes -- whether the law gives it to him or not. That suggests we have both a corrupt president and a corrupt Supreme Court. 

That's the take-home message, as I see it, from the high court's ruling issued Friday in Department of Homeland Security vs. League of Women Voters. It's a long and winding order, one that has not been fully litigated, one with a pretty high level of complexity -- and a high level of importance for all Americans who intend to vote in November's midterms. -- so I went looking online for an article that concisely summarizes the issues, giving readers a clear understanding of what is going on. I found such an article article at NPR's website under the headline "The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks." Jude Joffe-Block writes:

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has for now revived a federal data system the Department of Homeland Security revamped into a tool to check the citizenship of millions of Americans on state voter rolls. The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens. 

The news comes as the Trump administration has been pouring resources into searching for noncitizens on voter rolls ahead of the upcoming election.

Those two paragraphs form a jarring opening for Joffe-Block's article. 

In the first paragraph, the final sentence -- about the tool mistakenly flagging some eligible voters as potential non-citizens -- should give would-be voters a bout of angst.

The entire second paragraph doubles down on the angst by raising these questions: (1) Why would Trump be pouring money into searching voter rolls when, by law, he has no power over our elections? (2) Trump's Department of Justice has pursued access to state voter files, which critics describe as an effort to compile national data and purge voter rolls. Does this suggest the president has dubious plans to turn the midterms in Republicans' favor?

Democracy Docket, founded in 2020 by Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias, hints at GOP skulduggery with this not-so subtle headline: "Here is Trump's blueprint to rig the 2026 midterms. This passage from Elias is enough to make your stomach churn:

What once seemed like an abstract threat has now become concrete. The risk of a rigged election is no longer unthinkable. The need for action can no longer be delayed or denied.

 

I have often said that Donald Trump's plan is to make it harder for you to vote and easier for him to cheat. Now we know what that will look like in 2026.

In an alarming piece of news, Joffe-Block indicates some states seem to be playing along, perhaps unknowingly, with whatever scheme Trump has planned:

Many states uploaded their voter lists to the expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data system — known as SAVE — sharing that voter information with the federal government. Tens of millions of voter records were run through SAVE before it was blocked by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in June.

The Supreme Court's decision clears the way for the administration to again use the revamped SAVE in its hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls, as well as in its unprecedented project of compiling lists of adult citizens in each state.

Any impact on the midterm elections is unclear. Federal law bans states from "systematically" removing voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

It's more than a tad odd that SCOTUS would be receptive to an argument from a presidential administration on an issue where presidents are not supposed to be involved, certainly not via executive orders of questionable merit. Here is more from the NPR article:

The Trump administration and Republican state officials have made the case that the statute should not apply to removing noncitizens who were improperly registered. And the federal government argued to the Supreme Court that at a minimum, the updated SAVE should be able to be used for individual removal decisions ahead of an election.

In siding with the Trump administration, the court's majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government "from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court's order thus inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, and would have denied the Trump administration's stay application.

--------------------------------------------

Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has become the high court's most eloquent voice for the cause of Justice, spelled out the concerns of the liberal justices:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, writing about the "majority's omission of any consideration of the harms that might occur if the modified SAVE system is allowed to continue operating. The District Court highlighted such harms, noting the risk that States might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting."

The coalition of organizations that challenged the SAVE overhaul last year, which includes the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, put out a statement on Friday that said litigation in the case is ongoing.

"Today's decision is profoundly disappointing, as it puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration's unreliable voter purge database weeks before the midterm elections," the statement reads. "However, this case is not over. The D.C. district court ruled that the expanded SAVE program violated multiple laws. We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans' voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands." 

How did the Trump administration manage to insert itself into an election controversy where it did not belong? Joffe-Block provides the play-by play, noting that the administration wormed its way into the fight by tinkering with SAVE, a system that has been around much longer than many Americans might realize:

SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system that was created to check the immigration status of noncitizens to determine their eligibility for public benefits.

Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

------------------------------------

"The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," she wrote.

After an appeals court panel refused to stay the lower court's decision in a 2-1 vote, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this month.

In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.

"The district court's order, however, makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections," he wrote. 

A number of voting-rights groups were ready to return fire in Sauer's direction:

The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center — which are represented in the case by Democracy Forward, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Fair Elections Center — argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that Congress has not authorized the federal government to create a "master database of U.S. Citizens," nor does it have data that could do that accurately. The brief added that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing Americans' sensitive data.

"Disregarding these laws, the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights," the groups wrote.

They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system's error rate, or how many Americans' citizenship was misrepresented "and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits."

Trump has a history of showing disdain for court orders, but the processing of press credentials, more than defiance, probably caused delay for journalists returning from media ban

(Facebook)

An Associated Press survey over the first 15 months of Donald Trump's second term as president shows his administration ignored or violated court orders at least 31 times. When a federal judge granted a temporary injunction early Thursday morning that immediately lifted a White House ban on journalists at three prominent news outlets, reporters from the outlets (CNN, MS NOW, and Politico) said they still were being denied access even after the ban had been lifted. That caused some observers familiar with the administration's disdain for court orders to wonder if recent history was repeating itself.

Our research indicates that it probably was a delay in processing new press credentials, not defiance, that caused the delay. A report from USA Today and Yahoo! News has details:

All three media outlets that President Donald Trump banned from the White House were allowed back in Sept. 24 after a judge ruled that the revocation of their credentials probably violated the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, had ordered the administration to respond by 12:30 p.m. ET. CNN, MS NOW and Politico announced that their reporters were let back in just after noon, though many of them were initially denied access in the morning.

Micah Stopperich, director of White House press operations, submitted a statement to the court that the press credentials were restored Thursday morning and available for retrieval before 10 a.m. 

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) had a harsh reaction to yesterday morning's events, calling the original ban an "unconstitutional crackdown" and stating that the administration openly defied the court by continuing to deny access to the networks. The foundation issued a statement under the headline "White House defies judge who smacked down media ban": 

Hours after Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., delivered a resounding defeat to President Trump early this morning, restraining his administration from barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House and holding that the ban is likely unconstitutional, the administration defied the order by continuing to deny access to the networks.

Kelly held that the press met the “high bar” to show that the ban likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s protections for due process. He also rejected the administration’s argument that “national security” concerns justified the ban, noting that the news stories the administration pointed to are “routine” and that there is no precedent for applying laws prohibiting disclosure of classified information to reporters. 

But after Kelly’s ruling, and in spite of the temporary restraining order entered by the court, Politico, CNN, and MSNOW reported that some of their reporters were denied access to the White House and some had their press credentials confiscated. 

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the FPF, issued the following statement:

“The administration was rightly given the back of the hand by Judge Kelly for claiming routine reports harm ‘national security,’ but court orders are just paper unless they’re enforced. Enough is enough. Government officials who continue to deny journalists’ access to the White House in defiance of Kelly’s order should be held in contempt.

“And it’s long past time for judges to start aggressively sanctioning DOJ lawyers when they make frivolous national security arguments to turn Trump’s petty grievances against the press into government policy. That way, we won’t get to the point where Secret Service agents are defying court orders to carry out the president’s authoritarian whims.

“The Pentagon Papers case famously rejected a prior restraint aimed at specific documents the government claimed posed national security risks, and Trump himself lost two cases in which he tried to similarly ban reporters in his first term. Anyone who argues ‘national security’ are magic words justifying banning three entire news outlets from the White House should be not just laughed out of court but sanctioned.

“Trump’s own announcement of the ban admitted it was about coverage he didn’t like. The reports the government cited are years old and one was even based on a briefing from the vice president. Trump beats up on the free press not because of national security but because he’s terrified for the public to see what he and his administration are up to in the people’s house behind closed doors, whether it’s letting classified tech go missing or almost starting a war based on an AI hallucination.

“Those are the stories you won’t see on Trump TV. They bolster national security by exposing real threats to the homeland — government malfeasance and incompetence. Everyone involved in this multipronged and apparently ongoing attack on the Constitution must be held accountable.”

You can read Judge Kelly’s full order here.

Wayne Unger, associate professor of law at Quinnipiac University, writes at The Conversation under the headline "How due process, not the First Amendment, got the White House ban on reporters blocked in court." Unger notes that Trump is an old hand when it comes to attacking the rights of a free press:

This was not Trump’s first attempt at banning journalists from the White House. During his first term, he sought to ban CNN’s Jim Acosta by revoking his credentials following a contentious news conference about the 2018 midterm elections.

In that conflict, CNN filed a lawsuit, arguing that, “If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”

Journalism organizations also responded. The Committee to Protect Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and even Acosta’s peers at The Daily Caller – a right-leaning news outlet – condemned the White House ban.

Judge Kelly also is an old hand, having handled the Acosta case. Unger writes:

At the time, Kelly granted CNN a temporary injunction – reinstating Acosta’s press pass. The Trump administration later restored Acosta’s credentials, and CNN dropped its lawsuit.

Many commentators and members of the press have called Trump’s latest ban on the three news organizations a violation of the First Amendment.

 The case, however, goes beyond that issue, Unger notes:

White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich said on X that revoking access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico “violates the First Amendment.”

Even George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who staunchly supports Republicans and frequently criticizes the press, said on X that the ban “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.” 

As Turley and many others have argued, Trump’s ban is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Media law professor Frank LoMonte argued in 2018, “The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom to speak and publish without government interference.”

But they may be missing a crucial point. In fact, there’s more than one constitutional right involved in such a case. Kelly primarily based his 2018 ruling on the reporter’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process, not on the First Amendment. He relied on due process again in ordering access temporarily restored for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

In my view as a constitutional law professor, it is less clear whether the press has a constitutional right of access to the White House even though past presidents have honored and respected the press’s access to the executive branch.

While several Supreme Court cases, such as Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, unequivocally provide the press with a right of access to criminal trials, there is no Supreme Court precedent that specifically provides a clear constitutional right of access to the White House. 

In one case from 1977, Sherrill v. Knight, Robert Sherrill, the Washington correspondent for The Nation, was – after holding press passes over several years – denied a press pass because the Secret Service advised he should not be given one. The Secret Service refused to disclose their justification.

Sherrill sued, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Secret Service cannot deny a White House press pass absent “narrow and specific standards by which applications are to be judged.”

The court required the White House to provide the press with “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for (them) to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial (of a press pass).”

In the court’s view, these requirements – notice and an opportunity to rebut the bases for the denial of a press pass – are protected by two constitutional guarantees working together, the press protections in the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s protections from arbitrary deprivations of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 

In other words, before the federal government can deprive an individual of their life, liberty or property, the federal government must provide that individual with due process, whose purpose is widely accepted as preventing “arbitrary governmental actions.” 

There are a number of court decisions relevant to the journalists’ latest lawsuit, filed Sept. 21, 2026.

Among them is Mathews v. Eldridge from 1976, in which the Supreme Court stated that due process is flexible depending on the extent of the liberty or property interest at stake. But in general, the justices said, due process requires the government to provide notice to the individual and an opportunity for the individual to present their case before the deprivation occurs.

This nuance – the First and Fifth Amendment working in tandem – is what most commentators and critics are missing in their response to the recent ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico. In fact, these outlets collectively lead with their claim that the Trump administration violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process in their lawsuit to block Trump’s ban.

“Even if attending a White House event is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, that doesn’t mean the government is free to take it away as punishment,” Prof. Frank LoMonte argued in 2018. 

(Editor's Note: Those who are interested in the intersection of journalism and academia might want to check out The Conversation. It was launched in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, and co-founder Andrew Jaspan first discussed his idea with a vice chancellor at the University of Melbourne. Jaspan envisioned the University as a "giant newsroom," with academics and researchers collaboratively providing expert, informed content that engaged with the news cycle and major issues in current affairs. The project received financial support from Melbourne University, along with three other Australian universities. 

The company has grown to include more than 150 employees and produces six international editions. Subject areas include politics, society,, health, science, and the environment. As of 2018, 36 percent of its readership was in Australia, 29 percent in the United States.)