I came across a really interesting post by Eugene Volokh titled Supreme Court Recusals Because of Stock Ownership,
The L.A. Times reports that the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case might yield a 4-4 division — with no precedent being set, and the lower court decision being affirmed — because “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. withdrew because he holds Exxon stock.” And indeed important cases have in the past yielded 4-4 deadlocks because one Justice owned stock in one of the companies.
This is a pretty bad result, it seems to me: An important issue will be unresolved, the Justices’ time will be wasted, the parties’ money will be wasted, and all over what is likely just a few thousand dollars’ worth of investment.
He then linked to Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who wondered why Alito did not take advantage of Section 1043?
Under this provision, a judge thus can divest an asset causing a conflict of interest so as to hear the case and avoid paying capital gains provided the judge dumps any gains from the sale into a Treasury security or an approved mutual fund.
The provision was widely assumed to explain why Chief Justice Roberts first recused himself from the Stoneridge case and then reentered it.
I find that interesting on many levels. I would think during the vetting process a nominee would be advised to sell stocks or at least put them in a blind trust. Also, it’s not exactly a recent development, this Exxon Valdez case. Doesn’t the court have pretty good visibility into the cases that are likely headed their way? Alito has been on the Supreme Court since January 31, 2006, why would he have held onto Exxon stock all this time?
Maybe he’s just lazy?