Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips Warned Justice Alito His Oil Investments Face Material Risk From Climate Lawsuits For Years; Their Trade Association, Suncor and Exxon Briefed Him on How to Eliminate that Risk, Says Consumer Watchdog

Documents On File At The Supreme Court Of The United States And The Securities And Exchange Commission Establish That Justice Alito Has A Direct Financial Interest In The Outcome Of Suncor V Boulder

Consumer Watchdog Calls on Justice Alito to recuse from landmark Oct. 5 Supreme Court climate deception case

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito received warnings about the same climate deception lawsuits in two very different capacities: 1) as an investor, he was warned by Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips for years that climate deception lawsuits against them could adversely affect their businesses and his investments; 2) as a Justice, he has been told by Suncor, Exxon and oil industry amici representing Phillips 66 and Conoco Phillips that a favorable ruling in Suncor v. Boulder would prevent any climate deception lawsuits from advancing

The findings are part of new research by Consumer Watchdog examining Alito's financial interests and the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct as the Court prepares to hear the landmark Suncor v. Boulder climate deception case on Oct. 5. Alito's 2025 recent financial disclosure shows he continued to hold individual investments in ConocoPhillips valued at up to $15,000 and Phillips 66 valued between $15,001 and $50,000.

ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 or both are defendants in roughly two dozen active climate deception cases brought by states, cities, counties, tribes and individuals across the country that assert many of the same state-law claims at issue in Boulder.

Alito continues to own individual stock in Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips, both of which say in their own investor disclosures that they are defendants in climate litigation brought by governmental entities. The companies have explicitly warned shareholders over the past decade that these lawsuits could adversely affect their businesses, financial condition and investments in their stock (ConocoPhillips began warning shareholders about climate litigation against it in 2017, while Phillips 66 began issuing warnings in 2021).

Meanwhile, Suncor and Exxon have told Alito and the other Justices that Suncor v. Boulder presents an opportunity to resolve whether any climate deception cases may proceed in state courts across the country. Their petition says Boulder's claims are representative of parallel suits nationwide and that the Court's decision will have "immediate impact elsewhere."

The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips, is even more explicit. API tells the Court that its decision will have implications for the entire petroleum and natural gas industry, including its members, and asks the Justices to rule that "this suit, and others like it, may not proceed under state tort law."

The case has major implications for California because all nine of the state's climate deception cases are stayed pending the outcome of Boulder. ConocoPhillips is a named defendant in all nine cases, while Phillips 66 is a defendant in seven. The cases were brought by the California Attorney General, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach, and the counties of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Marin.

Consumer Watchdog today called on Alito to recuse himself from Suncor v. Boulder.

"As a shareholder, Alito has been warned that climate deception lawsuits pose financial risks to his investments. As a Supreme Court Justice, he has been told how Suncor v Boulder can prevent those lawsuits from advancing, removing the risk to his investments" said Alexandra Nagy, Organizing Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Justice Alito has a direct and documented financial stake in the outcome of Suncor v Boulder. Under the Supreme Court's own Code of Conduct, Alito should recuse."

As An Investor, Alito Was Warned Climate Lawsuits Could Hurt His Investments

Alito's financial interest in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 is not simply a general investment in the fossil fuel industry. Both companies have specifically warned shareholders multiple times in the past decade about the potential financial consequences of the category of climate litigation now before Alito as a Supreme Court Justice.

Phillips 66's 2025 Annual Report instructs shareholders to consider risk factors that "could adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, and reputation, as well as the value of an investment in our securities."

Among those risks, the company specifically identifies climate litigation:

"Increasing attention to global climate change has resulted in increased investor attention and an increased risk of public and private litigation, which could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business."

Phillips 66 told investors starting in 2021, counties and other governmental entities in several states have filed lawsuits against energy companies "including Phillips 66," seeking damages allegedly associated with climate change.

The company warns that similar lawsuits may be filed elsewhere, that the ultimate impact cannot be predicted and that it "could incur substantial legal costs" defending those cases.

Phillips 66 further warns that these risks could result in unexpected costs, increased operating expenses and reduced demand for its products, which could have "an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations."

ConocoPhillips delivers a similar warning. Its 2025 Annual Report tells shareholders that identified risks could materially and adversely affect its "business, operating results and financial condition, as well as the value of an investment in our common stock." ConocoPhillips began warning shareholders in 2017.

The company then specifically identifies the climate lawsuits against it:

"Beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2025, cities, counties, governments and other entities in several states/territories in the U.S. have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies, including ConocoPhillips, seeking compensatory damages and equitable relief to abate alleged climate change impacts."

ConocoPhillips says additional lawsuits with similar allegations are expected and notes that a 2025 class action seeks to hold energy companies liable for increased home insurance premiums allegedly resulting from climate change losses. It says the ultimate impact of the litigation cannot be predicted and that it expects to incur "substantial legal costs" defending these and similar lawsuits.

The companies' warnings are significant because ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 have been named defendants together in approximately two dozen climate accountability lawsuits brought by states, cities, counties and tribes across the country — many of the same types of cases the oil industry is asking the Supreme Court to stop through Suncor.

Oil Industry Asks Supreme Court To Stop Boulder "And Others Like It"

The briefs before the Supreme Court leave little ambiguity about the nationwide reach and impact the oil industry is seeking from Suncor v. Boulder.

In their petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case, Suncor and Exxon explicitly told the Justices:

"Energy companies that produce and sell fossil fuels are facing numerous lawsuits in state courts across the Nation seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries allegedly caused by the contribution of greenhouse-gas emissions to global climate change."

They urged the Court to intervene "to prevent dozens of climate change cases from improperly barreling ahead in state court."

And they expressly connected Boulder to the cases elsewhere:

"Respondents' claims are representative of the claims being brought in parallel suits across the country, meaning that resolution of the question presented here will have immediate impact elsewhere."

Suncor and Exxon ultimately ask the Court to "resolve whether climate-change claims are viable and may proceed on the merits in state courts across the country."

For Alito, the connection to the companies in which he owns stock becomes even more direct in the amicus brief filed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), whose members include ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66.

API tells the Court that Suncor is "one of many" cases brought against petroleum and natural gas companies and that:

"The Court's resolution of this case will have implications for the entire petroleum and natural-gas industry, including API's members."

API then tells the Justices what it wants them to do:

"This Court should make clear that this suit, and others like it, may not proceed under state tort law."

API also warns that if the climate suits succeed in obtaining "billion-dollar judgments," payouts to states and local governments will likely affect the energy supply chain.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), with ConocoPhillips SVP Andrew Lundquist also serving on NAM's board, similarly tells the Court that it has "grave concerns" about Boulder and similar attempts by state and local governments to impose climate-related liability. Its brief describes the cases as part of a national litigation campaign involving roughly three dozen lawsuits.

Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips have warned Alito, as one of their shareholders, that these lawsuits could adversely affect the companies and investments in their stock. The oil industry is simultaneously telling Alito, as a Justice, that Suncor could determine whether those lawsuits proceed.

Supreme Court's Response Ignores Key Parts Of Its Own Recusal Standard

The Supreme Court has already rejected calls for Alito to step aside from the case.

Responding to calls for Alito to recuse in May, a Supreme Court spokeswoman told NBC News that "Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party" involved in Suncor v. Boulder. Alito was advised by the Court's legal counsel that "his recusal is not required," she added.

But Consumer Watchdog said the response addresses only one part of the financial-interest standard contained in the Supreme Court's own Code of Conduct.

On November 13, 2023, Alito and the other Justices subscribed to the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct. Canon 3 states that a Justice should disqualify himself or herself when the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned — including where an "unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties."

The Code specifically identifies circumstances in which:

"The Justice knows that the Justice, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Justice's spouse or minor child residing in the Justice's household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding."

The Court's response focused on whether Alito has a financial interest "in any party." It did not publicly address the Code's other provisions concerning a financial interest "in the subject matter in controversy" or "any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome."

Consumer Watchdog said the companies' own investor disclosures and the oil industry's own representations to the Court make those unanswered provisions particularly relevant.

"The Supreme Court answered a question that is much narrower than its own ethics code," said Nagy. "Nobody is claiming Justice Alito owns Suncor stock. The issue is that companies he does own have told him these lawsuits pose a financial risk, while the oil industry is asking him to participate in a decision it says could stop those cases nationwide. That is exactly why the broader recusal standard matters."

Alito Previously Stepped Aside from Suncor – And Other Climate Deception Cases

Questions about Alito's participation are heightened by the fact that he previously recused himself when the same Boulder litigation came before the Supreme Court.

In 2022, Suncor asked the Supreme Court to review an earlier ruling in Boulder's climate deception lawsuit. When the Court denied Suncor's petition on April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court's official docket expressly stated: "Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."

Alito has also recused himself from consideration of other climate deception cases. When oil companies asked the Supreme Court to intervene in Honolulu's climate deception lawsuit, the Court's docket repeatedly recorded that "Justice Alito took no part" in consideration of the petition. ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 — the two oil companies in which Alito owns individual stock — were among the defendants in the Honolulu litigation.

But Alito did not step aside when Suncor returned to the Supreme Court with the current Boulder petition. The Court granted review on February 23, 2026 and has scheduled oral argument for Oct. 5.

Consumer Watchdog said Alito should explain what has changed since his previous recusal from the same Boulder litigation — particularly given that he continues to own stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 and new research shows those companies have warned shareholders that climate lawsuits against them pose financial risks, while the oil industry is now expressly asking the Court for a ruling that could stop similar cases nationwide.

Alito Family Oil Interests Also Intersect with Major Suncor Investor Paul Singer

The ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 investments are not Alito's only financial connection to the oil and gas industry relevant to Suncor.

Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Alito, agreed in 2022 to lease the family's Oklahoma mineral interests to private oil and gas producer Citizen Energy. In 2024, Citizen was acquired for more than $2 billion by Validus Energy, which is majority owned by billionaire Paul Singer's Elliott Investment Management.

Singer has a separate connection to the case now before Alito: Elliott has held a major investment in Suncor, the petitioner asking the Supreme Court to stop Boulder's case.

Singer's relationship with Alito has previously drawn scrutiny. ProPublica reported that Alito accepted transportation aboard Singer's private jet for a 2008 Alaska fishing trip without disclosing the flight at the time. Alito has disputed that the applicable disclosure rules required him to report the transportation.

The Alito family's oil interests and Singer therefore intersect in two ways: an Elliott-controlled company acquired the oil producer that leased the Alito family's mineral interests, while Elliott has been a major investor in Suncor.

Consumer Watchdog's previous investigation of the case also identified Singer's connections to organizations supporting Suncor before the Supreme Court, including the Manhattan Institute.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Reach Climate Cases Across The Country

The consequences of Alito's decision whether to participate extend far beyond Boulder.

States, counties, cities and tribes across the country have brought roughly three dozen climate cases seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable under state law. ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are themselves named defendants in numerous cases within that broader litigation.

Consumer Watchdog's previous investigation of Suncor found 38 amicus briefs supporting Exxon and Suncor, 25 of them filed by organizations funded by the defendants, fossil fuel interests or climate denial networks. ExxonMobil had funded 11 of the organizations.

Now, Consumer Watchdog's new research finds that Alito has received warnings from both sides of his dual role.

"Justice Alito does not have to speculate about whether these lawsuits pose a financial risk to the oil companies he owns. The companies have told him they do," said Nagy. "And he does not have to speculate about whether Suncor could affect those lawsuits. The oil industry has told him it can. Justice Alito should follow the Supreme Court's own Code of Conduct and recuse himself before Oct. 5."

Consumer Watchdog is calling on Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from Suncor Energy v. Boulder County before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Oct. 5.

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog