Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has countered accusations from the non-profit investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, regarding alleged undisclosed gifts and recusal failures. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Alito preemptively addressed ProPublica's impending report, asserting their claims are "misleading."

Alito refutes two key allegations: the necessity of recusal in cases involving entities linked to GOP donor Paul Singer and the obligation to disclose certain items as gifts on his 2008 financial report. He maintains his interactions with Singer were limited to brief encounters at large events and a fishing trip 15 years prior, during which they did not discuss Singer's business or pending court cases. He also notes two instances where Singer introduced him at speaking engagements and a flight to Alaska offered by Singer, which Alito asserts did not necessitate recusal.

Regarding the Alaska trip, Alito argues it falls under "personal hospitality," which, based on prior guidelines, did not require disclosure if offered by an individual on their property. He maintains he followed established practice at the time. Furthermore, he contends that Singer's name was absent from any relevant petitions or briefs, making it impossible for him to identify a conflict of interest. He emphasizes the impracticality of expecting Supreme Court employees to investigate every individual's financial stake in cases brought before the court. Alito also clarified that the flight was offered to him in a presumably vacant seat and accepting it avoided substantial costs and inconvenience for his security detail.

This incident follows previous ProPublica reports alleging conflicts of interest against Justice Clarence Thomas, which have drawn criticism and sparked discussions around ethics reform at the Supreme Court. ProPublica itself has faced scrutiny regarding its funding sources and potential donor influence, although the organization maintains its editorial independence.

ProPublica declined to comment on the unpublished story. This ongoing exchange underscores the increasing scrutiny faced by the Supreme Court and the complex interplay between justices, donors, and media organizations.