Justice Sam Alito shamed as 'absolute embarrassment' over case involving billionaire pal

A Supreme Court justice branded an "absolute embarrassment" has thrown the judiciary into a state of mistrust, an analyst accused Wednesday.

Justice Sam Alito was slammed for his refusal to recuse himself from a case concerning oil executive hopes of a climate claim in Colorado. Alito's connections to the case are well documented, with Slate writer Hannah Story Brown noting the stocks the judge has in the oil industry. But a personal relationship with Paul Singer, the billionaire founder and president of the hedge fund Elliott Investment Management, makes Alito's part in the case particularly questionable, Brown wrote.

Singer's firm holds major investments in Suncor, one of two companies involved in the Colorado climate suit. Alito's private stocks should be enough to have him recuse from the case, but the ties with Singer are an "absolute embarrassment," Brown wrote.

She added, "Alito and Singer’s relationship came under public scrutiny in 2023, when ProPublica reported that Alito had failed to disclose that he had flown for free on Singer’s private jet on his way to a luxury fishing trip in Alaska organized by 'court whisperer' Leonard Leo. If Alito had paid for the flight himself, it would have cost more than $100,000 each way."

The reporting on the trip prompted Alito to claim he was not close with Singer and that the seat would have gone unused had he not taken the trip. Brown suggested Alito had spun this as "saving taxpayer money by taking an undisclosed free trip on a billionaire's private jet".

Brown also earmarked the claim that Alito "hadn’t known that Singer was involved in certain cases before the court, but even if he had, he wouldn’t have been obliged to recuse anyway."

What should have been a moment to tighten what the Supreme Court appointees can and cannot accept from the public instead became a moment for the judiciary to turn inwards and make themselves less transparent, Brown argued.

She wrote, "But the pressures of the moment failed to yield a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court. While federal employees are broadly prohibited from accepting gifts worth over $20 from anyone with interests that might be affected by government business,

"Supreme Court justices, who enjoy lifetime appointments, can apparently argue their way out of disclosing free trips from billionaires via op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

"Far from taking action to remedy this crisis in public confidence, the Supreme Court has fashioned itself less transparent and accountable in the wake of the devastating 2022 Dobbs decision and subsequent ethics scandals. The high court is increasingly using the shadow docket to make monumental decisions outside of official proceedings, including to protect Trump’s executive power grabs."