Hubbry Logo
logo
Samuel Alito avatar
Samuel Alito
Community hub

Samuel Alito

logo
0 subscribers
Read side by side
Samuel Alito
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (/əˈliːtoʊ/ ə-LEE-toh; born April 1, 1950[1]) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated to the high court by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served on it since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, Alito is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key Information

Alito was raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. After law school, he worked as an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel and served as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. In 1990, Alito was appointed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where he served until joining the Supreme Court. He has called himself a "practical originalist"[2] and is a member of the Supreme Court's conservative bloc.[3]

Alito has written majority opinions in the landmark cases McDonald v. Chicago (2010) on firearm rights, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) on insurance coverage, Janus v. AFSCME (2018) on public-sector union security agreements, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) on abortion.

Early life and education

[edit]

Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey. He was the son of Samuel A. Alito Sr., a Calabrian immigrant from Roccella Ionica, Calabria, and Rose Fradusco, an Italian-American whose parents came from Palazzo San Gervasio in Basilicata.[4][5][6] Alito's father earned a master's degree at Rutgers University and was a high school teacher and later the first director of the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, a state government position he held from 1952 to 1984. Alito's mother was a schoolteacher.[7]

Alito grew up in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, a suburb of Trenton.[8] He attended Steinert High School, where he graduated in 1968 as the class valedictorian,[9] subsequently matriculating at Princeton University. In 1972, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.[10] His senior thesis, supervised by political scientist Walter F. Murphy, was entitled "An Introduction to the Italian Constitutional Court".[11]

At Princeton, Alito chaired a student conference in 1971 called "The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society", which supported curbs on domestic intelligence gathering and anticipated the need for a statute and a court to oversee national security surveillance.[12] The conference report itself also called for the decriminalization of sodomy, and urged an end to discrimination against gay people in hiring. Alito also led the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel during his time at Princeton.[13] He avoided Princeton's eating clubs, joining Stevenson Hall instead.[14]

In December 1969, while a sophomore at Princeton, Alito received a low lottery number of 32 in the Selective Service drawing. He became a member of the school's Army ROTC program.[15][a] Alito was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve in 1972. He began his military duty after graduating from law school in 1975 and served on active duty from September to December while attending the Signal Officer Basic Course at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Alito was promoted to first lieutenant and captain, and completed his service obligation as a member of the inactive reserve before being honorably discharged in 1980.[15]

At Princeton, Alito was "almost alone" in his familiarity with the writings of John Marshall Harlan II[17] and was much influenced by the course on constitutional interpretation taught by Walter F. Murphy, also his faculty adviser.[17] During his senior year at Princeton, Alito moved out of New Jersey for the first time to study in Italy, where he wrote his thesis on the Italian legal system.[18] Graduating in 1972, Alito left a sign of his aspirations in his yearbook, which said that he hoped to "eventually warm a seat on the Supreme Court".[19]

Alito then attended Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and earned a Juris Doctor in 1975.[10]

[edit]

After graduating from law school, Alito clerked for Third Circuit appeals judge Leonard I. Garth in Newark, New Jersey, in 1976 and 1977.[18] He interviewed with Supreme Court Justice Byron White for a clerkship but was not hired.[20] Between 1977 and 1981, Alito was Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.[21] There, he served under the then-chief of the appeals division Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maryanne Trump Barry (Barry, the eldest sister of Donald Trump, later became a federal judge).[22] While an Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, he prosecuted many cases involving drug trafficking and organized crime.[23]

From 1981 to 1985, Alito was Assistant to U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee. In that capacity he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court for the federal government.[24] In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986), the Supreme Court ruled against Charles Fried after he rejected a memo by Alito urging the Solicitor General to avoid directly attacking the constitutional right to an abortion.[25] Alito lost only two of the cases he argued before the Supreme Court.[26]

From 1985 to 1987, Alito was Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Charles J. Cooper in the Office of Legal Counsel during the tenure of Attorney General Edwin Meese. John F. Manning worked under Alito there.[14] Between 1986 and 1987, Alito authored nearly 470 pages of memoranda, in which he argued for expanding his client's law enforcement and personnel authorities.[27] In his 1985 application for Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alito espoused conservative views, naming William F. Buckley, Jr., the National Review, Alexander Bickel, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign as major influences. He also expressed concern about Warren Court decisions in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.[28]

From 1987 to 1990, Alito was the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.[29] When he arrived, the office had begun the prosecution of 20 defendants accused of being mob affiliates of Anthony Accetturo.[30] In August 1988, the two-year trial, then the longest federal criminal trial in history, ended in the acquittal of all 20 after less than two days of jury deliberations.[31] Alito soon hired Michael Chertoff as his chief deputy.[31]

After an FBI agent was shot in the line of duty in 1988, Alito personally handled the trial, assigning himself the then-novice Stuart Rabner as an assistant, and securing the shooter's conviction.[31] In March 1988, Alito sought a rehearing of extradition proceedings against two Indian men, represented by Ron Kuby, who were accused of being terrorist assassins, after Alito discovered that the death threats his prosecutor, Judy G. Russell, had received had been sent to her by herself.[32] The prosecutor was later found not guilty of obstruction of justice by reason of insanity, after psychiatrists found she may have suffered from schizophrenia, with up to four distinct personalities.[31][33] In 1989, Alito prosecuted a member of the Japanese Red Army for planning a terrorist bombing in Manhattan.[34]

Alito is a member of the Federalist Society,[35] a group of conservative and libertarian lawyers and legal students interested in conservative legal theory.[36]

Court of Appeals judge

[edit]

Nomination and confirmation

[edit]

Third Circuit Judges Leonard I. Garth, for whom Alito clerked, and Maryanne Trump Barry, under whom Alito worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney, recommended Alito's judicial nomination to President George H. W. Bush.[22] On February 20, 1990, Bush nominated Alito to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons. The American Bar Association rated Alito "Well Qualified" at the time of his nomination. He was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate on April 27, 1990,[37][38] and received his commission three days later. As a Third Circuit judge, his chambers were in Newark, New Jersey.[18]

Notable opinions

[edit]
Part of a series on
Conservatism
in the United States
Schools
Principles
History
Intellectuals
Politicians
Jurists
Commentators
Activists
Literature
Parties
Active
Defunct
Think tanks
Media
Newspapers
Journals
TV channels
Websites
Other
Other organizations
Congressional caucuses
Economics
Gun rights
Identity politics
Nativist
Religion
Watchdog groups
Youth/student groups
Social media
Miscellaneous
Other
Movements
Related
Abortion
  • On a Third Circuit panel, the majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned one part of a law regulating abortion, the provision mandating that married women first inform their husbands if they sought an abortion. Alito, the third judge on the panel, disagreed, arguing that he would have upheld the spousal notification requirement along with the rest of the law.
Federalism
First Amendment
  • A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), holding that a public school district's anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
  • A majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a government-sponsored holiday display consisting solely of religious symbols was impermissible, but that a mixed display including both secular and religious symbols was permissible if balanced in a generally secular context.
  • A dissenting opinion in C. H. v. Oliva (3d Cir. 2000), arguing that the removal and subsequent replacement in "a less conspicuous spot" of a kindergartener's religious themed poster was, at least potentially, a violation of his right to free expression.
Fourth and Eighth Amendments
  • A dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody, arguing that qualified immunity should have protected police officers from a finding of having violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized the search of a residence.
  • A unanimous opinion in Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), holding that there was "no federal constitutional bar" to the "indefinite confinement" of a man imprisoned for civil contempt because he would not pay his $2.5 million debt to his wife.
Civil rights
  • A unanimous opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about black people during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.[39]
  • A dissenting opinion in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 34 F.3d 188 (3rd Cir. 1994), arguing that a lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence of past conduct that defendant had created a hostile and racist work environment.
  • A majority opinion in Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3rd Cir. 1997), rejecting a female police officer's Equal Protection-based sexual harassment and retaliation claims against the city and certain police officials and rejecting her Title VII-based retaliation claim against the city, but allowing her Title VII-based sexual harassment claim against the city.

U.S. Supreme Court

[edit]

Nomination and confirmation

[edit]
Main article: Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination
With President George W. Bush looking on, Alito acknowledges his nomination.

On July 1, 2005, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court effective upon the confirmation of a successor. President George W. Bush first nominated John Roberts to the vacancy, but when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on September 3, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination to fill O'Connor's seat and instead nominated Roberts to the Chief Justiceship. On October 3, Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. Miers withdrew her acceptance of the nomination on October 27 after encountering widespread opposition.

On October 31, Bush announced that he was nominating Alito to O'Connor's seat, and he submitted the nomination to the Senate on November 10.[40] Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" to fill the Associate Justice post by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which measures the professional qualifications of a nominee.[41] The committee rates judges as "not qualified", "qualified", or "well qualified".[42] Leonard Leo was selected to play a role in shepherding Alito's appointment through the Senate.[43]

Alito's confirmation hearing was held from January 9 to 13, 2006. Two active-duty members of the Third Circuit, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry and Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, testified in Alito's confirmation hearing, as did five senior and retired circuit judges.[44] Alito responded to some 700 questions over 18 hours of testimony. He rejected the use of foreign legal materials in the Constitution, did not state a position on cameras in courtrooms (he had supported them while on the 3rd Circuit), said Congress could choose to outlaw LGBT employment discrimination in the United States if it wished, and told then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) that he endorsed a weak version of the unitary executive theory.[45]

On January 24, his nomination was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10–8 party line vote. Democratic Senators characterized Alito as a hard-right conservative in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Alito professed reluctance to commit to any type of ideology, stating he would act as an impartial referee. He said he would look at abortion with an open mind but would not state how he would rule on Roe v. Wade if that decision were to be challenged.

Democrats on the committee asked Alito about his past association with the conservative group Concerned Alumni of Princeton.[46] Alito said that he had listed an affiliation with the group on his application to Ronald Reagan's Justice Department in order to establish his conservative credentials: "You have to look at the question that I was responding to and the form that I was filling out... I was applying for a position in the Reagan administration. And my answers were truthful statements, but what I was trying to outline were the things that were relevant to obtaining a political position."[47] But during the confirmation hearings, he disavowed the group, whose views were criticized as racist and sexist, saying: "I disavow them. I deplore them. They represent things that I have always stood against and I can't express too strongly."[47]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formally opposed Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. The ACLU has only taken this step three other times in its entire history, opposing the nominations of William Rehnquist, Robert Bork, and Brett Kavanaugh.[48] In releasing its report[49] on Alito, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, "At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties. Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."[50]

Alito ceremonially sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts the day after his confirmation, February 1, 2006

Debate on the nomination began in the full Senate on January 25. After a failed filibuster attempt by Senator John Kerry, the Senate confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court on January 31 by a vote of 58–42.[51][52] All Senate Republicans voted in favor of confirmation except Lincoln Chafee, and all Senate Democrats voted against confirmation except Tim Johnson, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson. An Independent, Jim Jeffords, voted against confirmation.[53][54] Alito was sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court later that day.[55][56] He became the 110th justice, the second Italian-American,[57][58] the 11th Catholic in the history of the Supreme Court, the fifth Catholic on the Court at the time he assumed office, and one of six on the Court as of 2024.[59][60]

Because Alito joined the Court mid-term, he did not participate in the decisions of most of the early cases in the Court term because he had not heard arguments for them. These decisions were released with an 8-member Court; none were 4–4, so Alito would not have been the deciding vote in any of them if he had participated. Only three of these cases – Garcetti v. Ceballos, Hudson v. Michigan, and Kansas v. Marsh – were reargued since a tie needed to be broken.[clarification needed]

Tenure

[edit]

Alito delivered his first written Supreme Court opinion on May 1, 2006, in Holmes v. South Carolina, a case involving the right of criminal defendants to present evidence that a third party committed the crime. From the beginning of the Rehnquist Court to the nomination of Justice Elena Kagan, each new justice has been given a unanimous opinion to write as their first Supreme Court opinion; this practice is designed to help "break in" new justices so that each justice has at least one unanimous, uncontroversial opinion under their belt.[61][62] Alito wrote for a unanimous court in ordering a new trial for Bobby Lee Holmes due to South Carolina's rule that barred such evidence based on the strength of the prosecution's case, rather than on the relevance and strength of the defense evidence itself. His other majority opinions in his first term were in Zedner v. United States, Woodford v. Ngo, and Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy.

In his first term, Alito compiled a fairly conservative record. For example, in the three reargued cases (Garcetti v. Ceballos, Hudson v. Michigan and Kansas v. Marsh), Alito created a 5–4 majority by voting with the four other conservative Justices – Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. He further voted with the conservative wing of the court on Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[63] and Rapanos v. United States. Alito also dissented in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld alongside Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Alito delivered the Supreme Court Historical Society's 2008 Annual Lecture, "The Origin of the Baseball Antitrust Exemption". The lecture was published in two journals.[64][65]

In 2023, Martin–Quinn scores suggested that Alito was the most conservative Supreme Court justice.[66] While his voting record is conservative, he does not always join the opinions of the Court's other conservative justices. On February 1, 2006, in Alito's first decision on the Supreme Court, he voted with the majority (6–3) to refuse Missouri's request to vacate the stay of execution issued by the Eighth Circuit for death-row inmate Michael Taylor. Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were in favor of vacating the stay; Missouri had twice asked the justices to lift the stay and permit the execution.[67] Moreover, despite having been at one time nicknamed "Scalito", Alito's views have differed from those of Scalia (and Thomas), as in the Michael Taylor case and various other cases of the 2005 term. A fierce critic of reliance on legislative history in statutory interpretation,[citation needed] Scalia was the only member of the Court in Zedner v. United States not to join a section of Alito's opinion that discussed the legislative history of the statute in question. In two higher-profile cases, one involving the constitutionality of political gerrymandering and one involving campaign finance reform (LULAC v. Perry and Randall v. Sorrell), Alito adopted narrow positions, declining to join the bolder positions advanced by either philosophical side of the Court. According to a SCOTUSblog analysis of 2005 term decisions, Alito and Scalia concurred in the result of 86% of decisions in which both participated, and concurred in full in 75%.[68] Alito also differed from Scalia in applying originalism flexibly to arrive at conservative outcomes "with plodding consistency", rather than following it so strictly as to occasionally produce outcomes unfavorable to conservatives.[69]

Alito swearing in Mark Esper as the United States Secretary of Defense in 2019

Alito's majority opinion in the 2008 worker protection case Gomez-Perez v. Potter cleared the way for federal workers who experience retaliation after filing age discrimination complaints to sue for damages. He sided with the liberal bloc of the court, inferring protection against retaliation in the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act despite the lack of an explicit provision concerning retaliation.

Alito joined Thomas in writing a separate dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges.[70][71][72] In 2020, Alito wrote a dissent joined by Thomas to Bostock v. Clayton County, arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity and criticizing the majority's interpretation of Title VII.[73][74] In October 2020, Alito agreed with the other justices on the denial of an appeal filed by Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On November 12, 2020, Alito made headlines for comments about the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking to the Federalist Society, Alito criticized what he called the "loss of individual liberties", saying, "We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020" and calling the pandemic "a Constitutional stress test".[75]

Alito has called himself a "practical originalist"[2] and is a member of the Court's conservative bloc.[76] He has been described as one of the Court's "most conservative justices".[3][66][77][78]

According to The New Yorker, since the 2020 appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Alito has become "the embodiment of a conservative majority that is ambitious and extreme", overruling progressive precedents from the 1960s and '70s that were previously out of conservatives' reach.[69]

Alito drew controversy in June 2024 when a filmmaker who had been posing as a conservative posted a secret recording in which he could be heard agreeing with her assertion that Christians should win "the moral argument" against the Left and return the country to "a place of godliness".[79][80] When asked about political polarization in the United States, he responded, "one side or the other is going to win".[81]

Abortion jurisprudence

[edit]
Samuel Alito, 2018

In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state's ban on partial birth abortion was unconstitutional because such a ban did not have an exception in the case of a threat to the health of the mother. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with Roberts and Alito replacing Rehnquist (a dissenter in Roe) and O'Connor (a supporter of Roe) respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a federal statute, rather than a state statute as in the Stenberg case.

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a decision ruling the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act constitutional. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice majority that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left open the door for as-applied challenges. Kennedy said that the challenged statute was consistent with the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart.

Alito joined fully in the majority, as did Roberts. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may exceed the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy did not join that assertion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent.

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a leak of a first draft of a majority opinion by Alito that circulated among the justices in February 2022 for the upcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The opinion would overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and would likely either severely restrict access to abortion or make it completely illegal in states with trigger laws.[82] On June 24, 2022, the ruling was handed down. It was mostly identical to the leaked draft, with the addition of replies to the dissenting and concurring opinions. Alito wrote that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start", that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak" and that, "far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue", it had "enflamed debate and deepened division".[83] In July 2022, Alito gave his first public comments on the ruling in a keynote address for Notre Dame Law School's Religious Liberty Initiative in Rome. He mocked several foreign leaders for criticizing the decision, particularly U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, referencing his pending resignation, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, who had compared the ruling to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[84][85] During an October 2022 talk at The Heritage Foundation, Alito said that the leaked opinion made some justices "targets for assassination", referring to the assassination attempt on fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh during that year.[86] At the same event, he said that "questioning [the Court's] integrity crosses an important line", which many media commentators interpreted as criticism of Kagan's recent statements on the court's overturning of precedent during the past term.[87]

In November 2022, as the investigation into who had leaked the draft opinion was still ongoing, it was revealed that Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister and former anti-abortion activist, had written Roberts a letter about an alleged previous leak of a Supreme Court decision. He wrote that he had been informed of the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby weeks before the June 2014 decision, authored by Alito and favorable to anti-abortion conservatives, was officially announced.[88] Schenck claimed to have heard of the outcome from Gayle Wright, a conservative donor, shortly after she and her husband had lunch with Alito and his wife on June 3, 2014.[88] The New York Times claims contemporaneous emails written by Schenck "strongly suggested he knew the outcome and the author of the Hobby Lobby decision before it was made public."[88] In a statement, Alito denied having revealed the outcome or authorship of any decision before its official announcement, but did not dispute that the June 3 lunch with Wright had occurred.[88]

On April 21, 2023, Alito dissented when the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk that would have banned mifepristone (an emergency contraception medication) nationwide.[89][90][91]

Free speech jurisprudence

[edit]
Samuel Alito attending the inauguration of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt

Alito has also dissented from the opinions of the Court's conservative justices on free speech cases, one of which, Snyder v. Phelps, had to do with Westboro Baptist Church members' right to protest a military funeral.[92] Alito offered the sole dissenting opinion, saying protesters "were sued under a very well-established tort that goes back to the 19th century, the intentional infliction of emotional, of severe emotional distress. And I thought that this tort constituted a reasonable exception to the First Amendment, but my colleagues disagreed about that."[93]

In the 2007 landmark free speech case Morse v. Frederick, Alito joined Roberts's majority decision that speech advocating drug use can be banned in public schools, but also warned that the ruling must be circumscribed so as not to interfere with political speech, such as discussion of the medical marijuana debate.

Personal life

[edit]
Martha-Ann Alito (second from left) in 2006

In 1985, Alito married Martha-Ann Bomgardner, a law librarian who met him during his trips to the library as a law clerk.[18] They have two children; Martha-Ann left her profession to raise them.[94] Alito resided with his family in West Caldwell, New Jersey, before his Supreme Court nomination.[95] He has since moved to Fairfax County, Virginia.[96]

Since Stephen Breyer's retirement in 2022, Alito has been the only military veteran on the Court.[97] He is a baseball fan and a longtime fan of the Philadelphia Phillies.[98] The Phillie Phanatic was a special guest at his Supreme Court welcome dinner.[99]

In 2013, as part of the ongoing fallout from the Edward Snowden case, former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice revealed that, during 2002 and 2003, the National Security Agency targeted Alito's phones, and those of his staff and his family, for surveillance.[100][101]

Teaching

[edit]

As an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark from 1999 to 2004, Alito taught courses in constitutional law and an original course on terrorism and civil liberties. In 1995, he received the school's Saint Thomas More Medal "in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field of law".[102] On May 25, 2007, he delivered the commencement address at Seton Hall Law's commencement ceremony and received an honorary law degree from the school.[103]

As a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law, Alito taught Current Issues in Constitutional Interpretation in fall 2011 and a course in the Master of Laws in Judicial Studies program in summer 2012.[104][better source needed]

Ethical questions

[edit]
See also: Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

Accusations of accepting gifts

[edit]

On June 20, 2023, ProPublica published an investigation of Alito's relationship with billionaire businessman Paul Singer, focusing on a trip Alito and Singer took to a luxury fishing resort in Alaska and suggesting Alito "violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts", such as private jet travel.[105] The article said he should have recused himself in cases involving Singer and that he was obligated to disclose certain benefits as gifts on his 2008 Financial Disclosure Report. Legal ethics experts quoted in ProPublica called Alito's behavior "unacceptable".[106]

Shortly before publication of the ProPublica article, Alito published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal challenging the article's assertions and claiming that the source "misleads its readers".[107][108] His preemptory challenge maintained that ProPublica's charges were invalid.[105] Alito further contended that because of an exemption in the Court's reporting rules for "personal hospitality", he was not required to disclose private air transport for social trips.[107] His unconventional decision to bypass reporters' questions and preempt the story via a separate publication took ProPublica's reporters by surprise.[109] The decision to publish the op-ed was criticized both within the Wall Street Journal and by media critics, in part because it lacked fact-checking.[109][110]

The ProPublica report on unreported gifts to both Alito and Thomas led several members of Congress to call for ethics reform for the Supreme Court. This included a Senate Judiciary Committee proposal to establish a code of ethics for the Court.[111] In a July 2023 Wall Street Journal opinion column, Alito wrote, "Congress did not create the Supreme Court [...] I know this is a controversial view, but I'm willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period."[112] This declaration led to further debate among lawmakers. Senator Chris Murphy said the Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the Court: "It is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesn't have anything to do with the rules guiding the Supreme Court. In fact, from the very beginning, Congress has set those rules."[113]

Flag display controversy

[edit]
An upside down U.S. flag
The Pine Tree Flag

On January 17, 2021, an upside-down American flag was flown outside Alito's residence in Alexandria, Virginia.[114] The upside-down flag, traditionally a signal of distress,[115] was displayed by supporters of former president Donald Trump during the January 6 Capitol attack and by members of the Stop the Steal movement, an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In the summer of 2023, the Pine Tree Flag was flown at Alito's beach house on Long Beach Island in New Jersey.[116] It was one of the flags used during the American Revolution,[117] and has been used by Christian nationalists; it was also carried during the Capitol attack.[118][119] The flag displays, reported by The New York Times, caused controversy, including questions about judicial impartiality. During the flag's presence, the Supreme Court was considering the appeal in United States v. Fischer (2023), a case involving the January 6 Capitol attack.[120]

A secret recording by advocacy journalist Lauren Windsor captured Martha-Ann Alito discussing the event in June 2024. Martha-Ann Alito said, "I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month", adding that she would be "changing the flags" when her husband was "free of this nonsense" and that she would come with her own flag, which would be white with yellow and orange flames and read "vergogna" ("shame" in Italian). She also told Windsor that she would "get" "the media", adding: "Look at me. Look at me. I'm German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I'm going to give it back to you".[121]

Reactions were mixed, with most Democrats condemning Alito and most Republicans defending him. Senate Committee on the Judiciary chairman Dick Durbin requested Alito's recusal from cases involving the January 6 Capitol attack or the 2020 presidential election.[122] House Committee on the Judiciary member Steve Cohen introduced a resolution to censure Alito.[123] Forty-five representatives, joined by ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee Hank Johnson, signed a letter requesting Alito's recusal.[124] Senator Tom Cotton called the controversy an intimidation attempt,[125] while Senator Lindsey Graham said hoisting the upside-down flag was "not good judgment".[126]

Alito responded that he had no involvement in hoisting either flag, saying: "I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention" and "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not".[127] In an interview with Fox News, he reiterated that the flag was flown in response to a dispute with a neighbor,[128] clarifying that his wife was upset about a "Fuck Trump" sign. He told Fox News host Shannon Bream that the neighbor blamed him for the January 6 Capitol attack and called his wife a "cunt".[129]

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of Massachusetts called Alito's flag-flying "improper" in an essay published in The New York Times.[130][131] Ponsor later apologized after Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that his remarks hurt public confidence in the courts by taking issue with Alito's ethics.[130][131]

Bibliography

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Samuel Alito

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (born April 1, 1950) is an American jurist who has served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 2006.[1] Born in Trenton, New Jersey, to parents of Italian descent, Alito graduated from Princeton University with an A.B. in 1972 and from Yale Law School with a J.D. in 1975, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.[2] Following law school, he clerked for Judge Leonard I. Garth on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976 to 1977, then worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of New Jersey from 1977 to 1981 and as an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General from 1981 to 1987.[3] Appointed U.S. Attorney for New Jersey by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Alito later became a judge on the Third Circuit in 1990, nominated by President George H. W. Bush and confirmed unanimously.[3] Nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush in 2005 to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor, he was confirmed by the Senate 58–42 on January 31, 2006, and sworn in that day.[3] Alito is recognized as a leading conservative voice on the Court, employing a practical originalist approach that emphasizes textualism, historical context, and deference to traditional legal precedents over evolving societal norms.[4] His tenure has been marked by authorship of landmark majority opinions, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reasoning from first principles that such matters fall to state legislatures absent explicit constitutional protection.[5] In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), Alito wrote for the majority that closely held corporations could claim religious exemptions from contraceptive mandates under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prioritizing statutory protections for conscience over uniform regulatory application.[3] He has consistently dissented in cases expanding federal administrative power or redefining traditional institutions, advocating restraint against judicial overreach into policy domains.[6] While praised for meticulous reasoning and institutional loyalty—such as unanimous opinions upholding First Amendment limits—Alito's jurisprudence has drawn criticism from progressive quarters for purportedly favoring hierarchy and tradition, though empirical analysis of his Third Circuit record shows pragmatic, fact-bound decision-making rather than ideological rigidity.[7] Recent public scrutiny, amplified by media reports on symbolic displays at his residences, has highlighted tensions over perceived political impartiality, yet lacks direct evidence of case influence and reflects broader institutional biases in coverage.[6]

Background

Early Life and Education

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. was born on April 1, 1950, in Trenton, New Jersey, to parents of Italian heritage.[3] His father, Samuel A. Alito Sr., was born in Italy and immigrated to the United States, where he worked as a lawyer for the Federal Bureau of Investigation before becoming a professor and eventually director of the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services.[3] [8] His mother, Rose Fratalli Alito, served as an elementary school teacher and later principal.[9] The family resided in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, where Alito attended public schools.[3] Alito excelled academically in high school, graduating as valedictorian from Steinert High School in 1968. He participated extensively in extracurricular activities, including the debate team, band, track, honor society, and public speaking, among more than ten clubs.[3] [9] [10] Alito attended Princeton University, earning an A.B. in public and international affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School in 1972.[11] For his senior thesis, he wrote "An Introduction to the Italian Constitutional Court," conducting research in Italy during the summer following his junior year.[12] [13] He then enrolled at Yale Law School, receiving a J.D. in 1975.[11]

Pre-Judicial Career

Government Roles and Legal Practice

Following graduation from Yale Law School in 1975, Alito served as a law clerk to Judge Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976 to 1977.[3] In this role, he gained early exposure to appellate practice and federal judicial decision-making.[4] From 1977 to 1981, Alito worked as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where he prosecuted cases involving organized crime, public corruption, and other federal criminal matters.[3] [14] His efforts contributed to investigations targeting entrenched criminal networks in the region, demonstrating practical expertise in criminal law enforcement.[15] In 1981, Alito joined the United States Department of Justice as Assistant to the Solicitor General, serving until 1985.[15] During this period, he argued twelve cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government and handled numerous appeals in lower federal courts, focusing on constitutional and statutory issues.[3] [16] From 1985 to 1987, he advanced to Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, providing formal opinions on executive branch authority, separation of powers, and national security-related constitutional questions.[17] [14] Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Alito served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey until 1990.[18] [3] In this position, he oversaw a wide range of federal prosecutions, including high-profile probes into political corruption and organized crime syndicates, while managing the office's civil and appellate divisions.[19] His tenure emphasized rigorous enforcement of federal laws amid challenges from local political influences.[20]

U.S. Court of Appeals Tenure

Nomination and Confirmation

President George H. W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito on February 20, 1990, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to fill the seat vacated by Judge John Joseph Gibbons.[2] Alito's prior roles in the Reagan and Bush administrations, including as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and Assistant to the Solicitor General, underscored his experience in federal law enforcement and appellate advocacy, positioning him as a nominee committed to interpreting statutes according to their plain text and historical meaning.[3] The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings in April 1990, during which Alito testified on his judicial philosophy, emphasizing restraint, fidelity to precedent, and avoidance of policy-making from the bench; no significant opposition emerged, reflecting the era's relatively less polarized confirmation dynamics despite Democratic control of the Senate.[5] The full Senate confirmed Alito unanimously by voice vote on April 27, 1990, demonstrating broad bipartisan consensus on his qualifications at the time.[2][3] This swift, uncontroversial process contrasted with later judicial nominations, highlighting Alito's reputation as a mainstream conservative jurist whose executive branch service had not provoked the ideological scrutiny that would characterize subsequent appointments.[21]

Key Rulings and Judicial Record

During his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1990 to 2006, Samuel Alito authored or joined hundreds of opinions demonstrating judicial restraint, adherence to statutory text, and deference to legislative judgments, often prioritizing evidence-based outcomes over expansive judicial interventions.[22] His approach frequently emphasized narrow remedies in constitutional challenges, critiquing broad injunctions that exceeded the scope of alleged violations, and reflected a commitment to federalism by upholding state regulatory authority where supported by precedent and rational basis review.[23] The Third Circuit under Alito's influence maintained one of the lowest reversal rates by the Supreme Court among federal circuits, at approximately 47.5% over relevant periods, underscoring the panel's rigorous, precedent-respecting analysis that avoided policy-driven expansions of rights lacking firm textual or empirical grounding.[24] In the realm of free exercise protections, Alito's opinion in Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark (1999) exemplified his defense of religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The case involved Sunni Muslim police officers denied exemptions from the department's no-beard grooming policy for religious reasons requiring uncut beards; Alito, writing for a unanimous panel, held that the policy violated RFRA by imposing a substantial burden without demonstrating a compelling interest or least restrictive means, as the city routinely granted secular medical exemptions but not religious ones.[25] This ruling rejected facial neutrality arguments, insisting on individualized assessments to prevent discrimination against faith-based practices, and foreshadowed Alito's later emphasis on empirical evidence of burdens over abstract uniformity claims.[26] Alito advocated for restrained judicial remedies in abortion-related challenges, as seen in his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer (2000), where the panel struck down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban under substantive due process standards derived from Roe v. Wade. While concurring in the finding of facial unconstitutionality for certain applications, Alito dissented against the majority's broad injunction invalidating the entire statute, arguing that courts should tailor relief to specific undue burdens rather than nullify legislation wholesale, thereby preserving legislative leeway for fetal protection measures supported by medical evidence of viable alternatives.[23] This position highlighted his preference for as-applied challenges and empirical scrutiny of health claims over sweeping prohibitions that disregarded state interests in regulating procedures with documented risks.[27] On Establishment Clause matters, Alito authored the majority opinion in ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler (1999), upholding Jersey City's holiday display featuring a Christmas tree, menorah, and secular symbols against claims of endorsing Judaism or Christianity. Applying the Lemon test and endorsement analysis, he concluded the display's context—public celebrations, disclaimers, and inclusivity—communicated government neutrality rather than religious preference, rejecting the ACLU's argument for stricter secularism that would compel removal of longstanding traditions without evidence of coercion or division.[28] Alito's reasoning safeguarded ceremonial acknowledgments of cultural heritage while cabining free exercise concerns to actual burdens, aligning with originalist limits on judicial overreach into local commemorations.[22] Alito's criminal procedure decisions reinforced procedural safeguards grounded in statutory language and Fourth Amendment text, often dissenting from expansions favoring defendants without clear evidentiary support. In federalism cases, such as those involving state sovereign immunity, he affirmed congressional limits on abrogation absent explicit constitutional waiver, as in panel rulings upholding Eleventh Amendment protections against overbroad Commerce Clause assertions.[29] These patterns—favoring textual fidelity, empirical justification for burdens, and institutional deference—distinguished Alito's appellate record, yielding decisions with high affirmance rates and minimal ideological overextension.[30]

Supreme Court Ascension

Nomination Process

Following Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement of her retirement on July 1, 2005, President George W. Bush initially nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the vacancy on October 3, 2005.[31] Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005, amid intense opposition from conservative groups and senators who questioned her judicial philosophy, lack of bench experience, and perceived insufficient conservatism, exacerbated by demands for internal White House documents related to her advisory role.[31] [32] Bush announced Alito's nomination as Associate Justice on October 31, 2005, to fill O'Connor's seat, with the formal nomination received by the Senate on November 10, 2005.[33] [34] Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 1990, was selected for his 15 years of federal appellate experience, prior service as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, and alignment with originalist jurisprudence akin to that of Justice Antonin Scalia—earning him the moniker "Scalito" from observers noting similarities in judicial style and reasoning.[32] [35] The choice addressed conservative demands for a nominee with a proven track record of impartiality and intellectual rigor, contrasting Miers' perceived shortcomings and restoring unity among Bush's base after the earlier intra-party rift.[35] [36] Supporters, including Republican leaders, lauded Alito's unblemished record and depth, positioning him as a reliable interpreter of constitutional text over evolving policy preferences.[37] Democrats, who had initially signaled willingness for bipartisanship post-Miers, shifted to heightened examination of Alito's 1980s memos from his Reagan administration tenure, which expressed traditional positions on executive authority during national security matters and parental notification for abortions involving minors.[37] The nomination process thus crystallized ideological divides, with conservatives viewing Alito as a principled jurist and critics framing him as potentially extreme on issues like federalism and individual rights.[38]

Confirmation Battle

The Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito from January 9 to January 13, 2006, focusing on his judicial record, philosophy, and past associations.[39] Alito opened by emphasizing his commitment to the rule of law, textual interpretation, and stare decisis, while defending his appellate opinions as principled applications of precedent rather than ideological activism.[40] He described Roe v. Wade (1973) as a "serious jolt to the legal system" due to its shaky foundational reasoning but clarified that he held no personal vendetta against it, viewing overruling precedent as a high bar requiring exceptional justification.[41] Democrats on the committee, led by Senators Chuck Schumer and Edward Kennedy, aggressively probed Alito's involvement with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), a group critical of affirmative action and coeducation at his alma mater, alleging it reflected ideological extremism.[42] Alito disavowed CAP's more inflammatory positions, explaining his 1985 association as a limited advisory role motivated by concerns over campus politicization, and highlighted his own Princeton ROTC participation—which he joined in 1970 to prepare for potential Vietnam-era service—as evidence of traditional patriotism amid anti-military campus sentiment.[43] Separately, they questioned his 2002 ruling in a case involving Vanguard Group, where Alito owned mutual fund shares worth over $100,000, accusing him of ethical inconsistencies for not recusing initially despite a prior pledge to avoid such conflicts.[44] Alito acknowledged administrative oversights in disclosure but maintained the decision complied with judicial ethics codes, as his investments were passive and diversified, and he later recused from related appeals.[45] Alito consistently countered bias allegations by reiterating his textualist approach—interpreting statutes and the Constitution based on their original public meaning—and rejecting outcome-driven judging, which he contrasted with accusations portraying him as a partisan operative.[40] The committee advanced his nomination on January 24, 2006, by a 10-8 party-line vote.[5] On the Senate floor, amid Democratic threats of filibuster to block what they deemed an ideologically extreme pick, Alito was confirmed 58-42 on January 31, 2006, with all but one Republican (Lincoln Chafee) voting yes and four Democrats (Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, and Ben Nelson) crossing party lines.[46] [47] Observers noted Alito's measured composure and substantive responses as key to navigating the partisan scrutiny, prioritizing legal reasoning over rhetorical flourishes.[48]

Supreme Court Service

Judicial Philosophy and Originalism

Samuel Alito adheres to originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation, viewing the Constitution's meaning as fixed by its original public understanding at ratification, rather than subject to evolution based on contemporary values. He has described himself as a "practical originalist," emphasizing that the document "means something and that that something does not change," which constrains judicial discretion and prioritizes historical evidence over policy preferences.[49] This approach aligns with textualism in statutory construction, where Alito employs a contextual textualism that considers ordinary meaning informed by historical practices, while rejecting reliance on legislative history or extraneous policy rationales unless tied to the text's original import.[50] Alito's originalism incorporates elements of tradition and precedent in an "inclusive" framework, allowing judges to weigh longstanding practices or prior rulings only insofar as they elucidate or align with the Constitution's original meaning, thereby promoting judicial restraint and humility over sweeping doctrinal overhauls.[51] He critiques approaches that elevate modern equity or "evolving standards" above fixed textual and historical anchors, arguing such methods enable judicial policymaking that circumvents democratic accountability and expands government authority beyond constitutional limits.[52] This philosophy underscores federalism and separation of powers as mechanisms to curb overreach, with Alito advocating for empirical fidelity to founding-era evidence in assessing claims of implied powers, such as those aggrandizing administrative agencies.[4] Influenced by the methodological rigor of Justices Scalia and Thomas, Alito applies originalist principles consistently to maintain the judiciary's role as interpreter rather than super-legislator, even amid external pressures from media or academic circles favoring more fluid interpretive paradigms.[53] In public remarks, he has urged originalist judges to exhibit self-confidence against critiques from hostile institutions, reinforcing that true restraint derives from adherence to verifiable historical meaning over subjective balancing or outcome-driven analysis.[54] His record demonstrates a commitment to this restraint across diverse issues, prioritizing causal outcomes rooted in constitutional structure over abstract ideals of progress.[55]

Abortion and Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), Alito authored the majority opinion holding that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and does not protect it under the Due Process Clause, overruling Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).[56] The decision reasoned that the right to abortion lacks deep roots in the Nation's history and traditions, as evidenced by common-law precedents treating abortion of a quick child as a serious crime and by state laws criminalizing abortion at all stages by the mid-19th century, including all but one state by 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[56] Alito emphasized that Roe's viability line was arbitrarily drawn without historical basis, and restoring regulatory authority to state legislatures respects democratic processes over judicial policymaking.[56] Prior to Dobbs, Alito joined the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 against facial challenges under the Casey undue-burden standard. The opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, found the ban rationally related to legitimate state interests in preserving fetal life and maternal health, supported by medical evidence that intact dilation and evacuation procedures involve risks without proven necessity, even absent a broad health exception. Alito's vote proved decisive in the 5-4 ruling, signaling a shift from Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) by deferring to congressional findings on the procedure's brutality and potential harms.[57] Alito dissented in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), opposing the invalidation of Texas House Bill 2's requirements for abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and perform procedures in ambulatory surgical centers. He argued that the majority improperly weighed benefits against burdens under Casey, substituting judicial judgment for legislative evidence of abortion's physical and psychological risks, including infection, hemorrhage, and cervical laceration, which the regulations addressed through higher standards akin to those for other outpatient surgeries. Joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, Alito contended that such deference to state protections for fetal life and patient safety aligns with federalism, rejecting the notion that regulations impose an undue burden absent proof of outright prohibition. Alito's jurisprudence prioritizes historical practice and state sovereignty over unenumerated privacy rights without textual or traditional anchors, viewing abortion regulation as a matter for elected bodies rather than federal courts imposing nationwide standards.[56] This approach counters claims of extremism by grounding decisions in empirical legislative findings on abortion complications—such as elevated risks of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies and mental health issues like anxiety and substance abuse—and the absence of abortion as a recognized liberty in founding-era sources.[58] Critics from advocacy groups and outlets with documented pro-choice leanings label these views as regressive, but Alito's reasoning underscores causal links between lax oversight and documented harms, affirming states' authority to weigh fetal viability against maternal interests post-viability.[56]

Second Amendment and Individual Rights

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Justice Alito authored the majority opinion holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[59] The decision extended the individual-rights framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rejecting Chicago's near-total handgun ban and emphasizing historical evidence from the founding era, including state constitutional provisions protecting the right to arms for personal security rather than militia service alone. Alito's opinion highlighted the practical failures of stringent urban restrictions, noting that Chicago's ban persisted amid elevated homicide rates—448 murders in 2007, with 80 percent involving firearms—while affirming self-defense as a core, pre-ratification purpose of the Amendment unsupported by collectivist interpretations.[59] Alito has consistently opposed categorical bans on non-dangerous arms, as in his concurrence in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), where he argued that prohibiting stun guns for a domestic violence survivor violated the Second Amendment, given their non-lethal nature and utility for self-protection by those unable or unwilling to wield traditional firearms. Joined by Justice Thomas, Alito critiqued the state court's dismissal of modern bearable arms as outside the Amendment's scope, insisting that historical analogues must account for technological evolution in defensive tools without endorsing interest-balancing tests that prioritize policy outcomes over textual and traditional limits. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), Alito concurred in striking down New York's subjective "proper cause" requirement for concealed-carry licenses, endorsing the majority's text, history, and tradition test as superior to means-end scrutiny, which he viewed as enabling judges to uphold restrictions based on contemporary sensibilities rather than founding-era evidence.[60] He rebuffed dissents invoking empirical data on gun violence, contending that such societal-impact arguments conflate Second Amendment analysis with legislative policy debates and ignore the Amendment's deliberate detachment from utilitarian balancing, thereby preserving the right against discretionary public-safety denials in high-crime contexts.[61] This approach counters post-Heller trends toward diluted individual rights by demanding verifiable historical precedents for burdens on law-abiding citizens' self-defense prerogatives, rather than deference to regulatory preferences in urban settings.[62]

Religious Liberty and Free Exercise

Alito has consistently advocated for robust protections of religious exercise under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), applying strict scrutiny to government actions that substantially burden sincere religious beliefs, even when laws are facially neutral.[63] In his view, mere neutrality toward religion does not suffice to justify impositions on conscience, as such policies can enable indirect hostility toward traditional faith practices; he has argued that governments must demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to accommodate religious objectors.[63] This approach prioritizes individual and institutional religious liberty over uniform secular mandates, drawing on historical practices where faith exemptions were routine rather than exceptional.[64] In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion holding that RFRA's protections extend to closely held for-profit corporations whose owners hold sincere religious objections. The Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the Green family's exercise of faith by requiring coverage of drugs they viewed as abortifacients, and the government's alternatives—such as cost-sharing—failed least-restrictive-means scrutiny despite claims of administrative efficiency. Alito rejected arguments limiting RFRA to nonprofits, noting Congress's intent to broadly restore pre-Smith protections against federal burdens on religion. Alito joined the unanimous judgment in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) invalidating the city's refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services unless it certified same-sex couples as foster parents, but in a concurrence joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, he urged overruling Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which permitted neutral, generally applicable laws to burden religion without heightened review.[63] He contended that Smith's rule invites discriminatory application through selective exemptions and undermines free exercise by deferring to majoritarian policies that sideline minority faiths, as evidenced by Philadelphia's policy effectively excluding religious agencies despite their proven efficacy in foster care placement.[63] Alito emphasized that true general applicability requires consistent enforcement, not ad hoc waivers that favor secular providers over faith-based ones.[63] In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), Alito concurred in the 6-3 decision permitting a high school coach's post-game prayers on the field, endorsing a "history and tradition" test for Establishment Clause challenges over the discredited Lemon endorsement inquiry, which he described as subjective and prone to anti-religious bias.[64] The ruling rejected coercion or endorsement claims absent evidence of compelled participation, aligning with Founding-era practices of public religious expression by officials acting in personal capacity.[64] Alito critiqued lower courts' reliance on Lemon's secular-purpose prong as fostering a "wall of separation" interpretation that distorts the Clause into prohibiting tradition-affirming acknowledgments of faith's role in American civic life.[64]

Free Speech and Associational Rights

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018), Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion overruling Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and holding that state laws permitting public employers to deduct agency fees from nonconsenting employees' wages violate the First Amendment.[65] The ruling determined that such fees compel non-union workers to subsidize union speech, including ideological and political advocacy, which the government lacks authority to extract absent consent, as it burdens both the right against compelled speech and freedom of association by forcing alignment with a private entity's views.[65] Alito rejected the Abood framework's distinction between chargeable bargaining costs and non-chargeable activities, arguing that union expenditures are inherently intertwined and that any fee risks subsidizing dissenters' ideological opponents, undermining voluntary association principles central to the First Amendment.[66] Alito's opinion critiqued agency shop arrangements as incompatible with core anti-coercion tenets, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects individuals from government-mediated extraction for speech they oppose, even if intended to promote "labor peace," and warned of broader risks to expressive autonomy in public employment.[65] This decision extended protections against viewpoint discrimination, ensuring non-union employees could avoid funding union positions on matters like collective bargaining unrelated to their immediate terms of employment.[67] In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Alito joined the 5-4 majority invalidating provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that barred independent corporate expenditures on electioneering communications close to elections, reasoning that restrictions based on corporate status discriminate against political speech indispensable to self-governance.[68] The ruling prioritized speaker-neutrality, rejecting arguments that corporate funding corrupts democracy without evidence of quid pro quo, and Alito later defended it against claims of unleashing undue influence, asserting it safeguarded core electoral expression from content-based limits.[69] Alito also joined the majority in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), which held 6-3 that applying Colorado's public accommodations law to require a web designer to produce custom wedding websites celebrating same-sex marriages would compel her to express messages contradicting her beliefs, violating free speech protections against government-directed endorsement.[70] This reinforced anti-compulsion doctrines, distinguishing pure conduct regulations from those entangling expressive activity, and underscored associational rights by exempting creators from mandatory participation in events implying affirmation of viewpoints they reject.[71]

Other Significant Contributions

In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), Alito dissented from the majority's holding that Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination "because of ... sex" encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, arguing that the decision constituted judicial legislation extending the statute beyond its ordinary public meaning at enactment and warning of downstream consequences for religious employers and free speech.[72] He emphasized textualism's role in constraining expansive statutory interpretations that alter settled social norms without clear legislative intent.[73] Alito joined the majority in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which invoked the major questions doctrine to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to mandate a "system-wide transformation" of the energy sector via generation shifting, requiring Congress to speak clearly for agencies to exercise such vast economic and political power.[74] He also joined Justice Gorsuch's concurrence reinforcing the doctrine's roots in separation of powers and skepticism toward agency claims of implicit authority over matters of "vast economic and political significance."[74] This approach aligns with Alito's broader jurisprudence curbing executive overreach in administrative rulemaking. In criminal procedure, Alito authored the majority opinion in Vega v. Tekoh (2022), ruling 6-3 that a violation of Miranda warnings does not furnish a basis for a civil damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Miranda establishes prophylactic rules rather than freestanding constitutional rights enforceable outside habeas contexts.[75] The decision prioritizes administrable rules over expansive suppression remedies, focusing on voluntariness under the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause as the core protection against coerced confessions.[76] Alito has similarly stressed warrant requirements in Fourth Amendment cases, dissenting in instances where courts dilute probable cause standards for searches in high-crime areas or digital contexts.[77] On federalism and immigration enforcement, Alito dissented in United States v. Texas (2023), contending that states challenging executive non-enforcement priorities under the Immigration and Nationality Act possess Article III standing, as prosecutorial discretion does not immunize agency inaction from judicial review when it inflicts concrete harms like increased costs from unaddressed illegal immigration.[78] This stance underscores limits on federal preemption of state interests in cooperative federalism schemes. In October 2025 remarks at an academic conference, Alito affirmed respect for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) as precedent despite his original dissent, cautioning originalists against rigid applications that ignore stare decisis in settled areas while critiquing the decision's lack of constitutional textual basis.[79] Regarding recusals, Alito has participated case-by-case in 2025 petitions, including those on gun regulations where he joined dissents from certiorari denials, reflecting individualized ethics assessments rather than blanket avoidance.[80][81]

Personal Life

Family and Private Interests

Samuel Alito married Martha-Ann Bomgardner, a law librarian from Kentucky, on August 24, 1985.[82] The couple has two children: a son, Philip, and a daughter, Laura.[1] The family lived primarily in New Jersey during Alito's tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, relocating to Washington, D.C., following his 2006 appointment to the Supreme Court.[83] Alito, a practicing Roman Catholic, has emphasized the role of faith and family in sustaining him through the rigors of judicial service.[3] His wife has maintained a low public profile, focusing on private family matters amid the demands of his position.[84] The Alitos prioritize a stable home life, with limited disclosures reflecting a modest personal lifestyle; Alito's 2024 financial report, filed in August 2025, disclosed no new income from his book deal and stock holdings accrued through spinoffs rather than active purchases.[85] In his private pursuits, Alito is an avid baseball enthusiast, particularly a supporter of the Philadelphia Phillies, a passion rooted in his Trenton upbringing where he played second base and later coached his son's Little League team in Essex County.[9] He occasionally incorporates sports analogies into public remarks, underscoring this interest as a personal outlet.[9]

Teaching and Scholarly Work

Alito served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law from the early 1990s until at least 2005, during his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[86] [87] He taught courses in constitutional law, emphasizing textual interpretation and historical context in judicial decision-making.[8] Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Alito developed and led a graduate seminar on terrorism and civil liberties, offered as early as 2003 with enrollment capped at 12 students.[88] The course examined landmark precedents on presidential authority during wartime, spanning cases from the Civil War through modern conflicts, including issues of executive power, surveillance, and individual rights under the Fourth Amendment.[89] Students reported Alito as prepared and engaging, fostering discussions on balancing national security with constitutional protections without revealing personal views.[90] Alito's pre-judicial scholarly output included articles on topics such as prosecutorial discretion and the scope of federal judicial authority, reflecting a commitment to restraint in interpreting statutes and deference to legislative intent.[4] In August 2025, he signed a book deal with Basic Books' Basic Liberty imprint for publication in 2026, with the topic undisclosed; his financial disclosure filed that month reported no royalties or advances received to date.[91] [85]

Controversies and Public Scrutiny

Ethical Allegations and Gift Disclosures

In June 2023, investigative outlet ProPublica reported that Samuel Alito accepted an undisclosed luxury fishing vacation in Alaska in July 2008, arranged and largely funded by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a Republican donor whose firms later had business before the Supreme Court.[92] The trip included a private jet flight from Washington, D.C., to a remote fishing lodge, accommodations at the King Salmon Lodge, and guided fishing excursions, with an estimated value exceeding $100,000 based on comparable charter costs and lodge rates.[92] Alito did not list the trip on his annual financial disclosure forms, citing at the time the absence of a requirement to report personal hospitality from non-lobbyists under prevailing judicial ethics guidelines.[92] Alito publicly defended the arrangement in a June 20, 2023, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, asserting that the invitation originated through his wife Martha-Ann Alito's friendship with lodge owner Martha-Ann Bomgardner, independent of Singer's involvement, and that ethical norms at the time exempted such personal hospitality from disclosure or recusal obligations.[93] He maintained that Singer's presence was coincidental as a fellow fisherman and emphasized that pre-2010 Supreme Court practices routinely omitted reporting for similar friend-extended trips, a standard applied across justices regardless of ideology, with no formal enforcement mechanism for disclosures until subsequent rule changes.[93] Alito further argued that recusal from Singer-related cases—such as those involving his hedge funds post-2008—was unwarranted, as the brief acquaintance did not create an appearance of bias under federal standards, and no direct quid pro quo evidence emerged.[93] A December 21, 2024, investigative report by the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee criticized Alito's non-disclosure, alleging misuse of the "personal hospitality" exemption and potential violations of federal ethics laws, while estimating unreported benefits from donors like Singer at significant values.[94] The report, spanning a 20-month probe, highlighted similar patterns among conservative justices but acknowledged the pre-2010 era's voluntary disclosure framework lacked binding penalties, a leniency reflected in historical filings where justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer also omitted comparable personal travel from friends or hosts.[94][95] No enforceable breach was adjudicated, as the Supreme Court adopted a formal ethics code only in November 2023, postdating the incidents, and empirical reviews of past disclosures indicate widespread non-reporting of de minimis or personal gifts below thresholds, with total unreported values across justices estimated in millions but without proven case-influencing ties.[96] Alito's August 2025 financial disclosure for 2024, covering the prior calendar year, reported no gifts exceeding the $480 threshold, one reimbursed instance of food and lodging for an official speaking engagement, and ongoing stock holdings without newly identified conflicts or donor-linked travel.[97][85] Allegations of systemic "pay-to-play" influence remain unsubstantiated, as no evidentiary links connect the 2008 trip to altered rulings in Singer's cases—where Alito's participation aligned with majority outcomes—or demonstrate causation beyond temporal proximity, contrasting with the absence of formal sanctions or peer rebukes.[93][98]

Flag Display Episodes

In January 2021, an inverted American flag was photographed flying outside Justice Samuel Alito's home in Alexandria, Virginia, on January 17.[99] Alito attributed the display to his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, who flew it briefly in response to a neighborhood dispute involving politically charged signs and flags erected by neighbors, including one referencing then-President Donald Trump as a "fascist"; he stated he had no involvement in its placement and requested its removal, though she initially declined, and it was taken down within days.[100] The inversion, traditionally a maritime distress signal rather than an endorsement of election denialism, occurred amid post-January 6 tensions but predated escalated aspects of the reported neighbor conflict, which a involved party, Emily Baden, claimed began later in February.[101] In summer 2023, an "Appeal to Heaven" flag—featuring a green pine tree on a white field with that motto—was flown at the Alitos' vacation beach house in Long Beach Island, New Jersey, as documented by photographs and public records.[102] Alito described this as another instance of his wife's independent choice to display flags, noting he was initially unfamiliar with it but recognized its historical origins upon reflection; the design traces to Continental Navy ships commissioned by George Washington in 1775, drawing from John Locke's phrase in Second Treatise of Government to invoke divine justice when earthly recourse fails, and served as a revolutionary symbol predating partisan appropriations.[103][104] Responding to media reports linking the flags to "Stop the Steal" symbolism or January 6 events, Alito published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on May 17, 2024, rejecting implications of personal bias or impartiality concerns, emphasizing the displays' disconnection from his judicial role and critiquing selective outrage given comparable symbols at other justices' residences.[100] In a May 29, 2024, letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats declining recusal from related cases, he reiterated his noninvolvement—"My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not"—and affirmed the pine tree flag's non-partisan Revolutionary War heritage, underscoring that no direct connection existed to pending Supreme Court matters, which had already rejected 2020 election challenges without his influence.[105][106] These episodes, occurring at private residences and attributed to spousal discretion amid local tensions, lacked empirical ties to Alito's docket, prioritizing verifiable domestic context over speculative partisan signaling amid broader institutional scrutiny of the Court.[105][100]

Recusal Pressures and Responses

In May 2024, Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, urged Chief Justice John Roberts to direct Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from Trump v. United States (No. 23-939), concerning presidential immunity, as well as from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the January 6, 2021, Capitol events, citing perceived bias from reports of flags displayed at Alito's residences. Similar demands came from House members, such as Representatives Hank Johnson and Mikie Sherrill, who argued that the flags created an appearance of prejudice warranting disqualification under the Supreme Court's Code of Conduct.[107] [108] Alito responded directly in a letter dated May 29, 2024, to Durbin and Whitehouse, declining recusal and asserting that the Code of Conduct's standards—requiring recusal only for actual participation in the matter, direct financial interest, or circumstances where impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on objective facts—did not apply.[109] He emphasized his lack of involvement in the events at issue, noting that the flags had been flown by his wife without his input on their display, and that he had no control over such private decisions by family members.[110] Alito further argued that recusal based solely on spousal actions or public speculation would undermine judicial independence, as it could invite strategic challenges to justices' participation driven by partisan narratives rather than evidence of personal bias.[111] He issued a parallel response to House Democrats, reaffirming his commitment to impartial decision-making grounded in law and facts.[111] Alito proceeded to participate in Trump v. United States, joining the majority opinion on July 1, 2024, which granted absolute immunity for core constitutional presidential acts and presumptive immunity for official acts, while his concurrence underscored evidentiary burdens on courts to distinguish protected from unprotected conduct without delving into motives. Critics, including outlets with documented left-leaning editorial biases such as The Guardian and The New York Times, characterized his refusal as dismissive of ethical norms and a threat to public confidence in the Court, though such assessments often amplify partisan demands without evidence of Alito's deviation from prior rulings against conservative positions in analogous contexts.[112] [113] In contrast to these pressures, Alito has recused himself from unrelated cases involving direct financial interests, demonstrating consistent application of conflict rules; for instance, he abstained from Loomer v. Department of State in October 2025, likely due to his ownership of stock in defendant Procter & Gamble.[114] He also recused in a May 2025 petition tied to justices' book publishers, alongside others, reflecting adherence to disclosure-based standards rather than subjective appearances.[115] These instances counter claims of selective ethics, prioritizing actual conflicts over amplified perceptions from media and political actors seeking to influence outcomes in high-profile election-related litigation.

References

  1. Current Members - Supreme Court
  2. Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Federal Judicial Center |
  3. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. - Oyez
  4. Introduction: The Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito – Robert P ...
  5. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
  6. "The Distinctive Role of Justice Samuel Alito: From a Politics of ...
  7. Fireside Chat, RWU Law Style, With Supreme Court Justice Samuel ...
  8. Samuel Alito - Supreme Court Justices - Biography
  9. 10 Things You Didn't Know About Samuel Alito - USNews.com
  10. Alito Is Seen as a MethodicalJurist With a Clear Record
  11. LII: US Supreme Court: Justice Alito
  12. An Introduction to the Italian Constitutional Court - DataSpace
  13. A Tiger on the Court: Sam Alito '72 at Princeton
  14. Hon. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. - The Federalist Society
  15. https://www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/alito.html
  16. Remarks Announcing the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, A., Jr. Jr ...
  17. Judicial Nominations - Justice Samuel A. Alito (Text Only)
  18. District of New Jersey | Office History - Department of Justice
  19. https://www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051031.html
  20. Alito proved his mettle in Reagan Justice Dept. - NBC News
  21. Judicial Nominations - Justice Samuel A. Alito
  22. Notable Rulings from Alito - NPR
  23. U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Samuel A. Alito and the Abortion ...
  24. [PDF] Supreme Court Reversals: Exploring the Seventh Court
  25. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE NEWARK LODGE NO 12 v. CITY ...
  26. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark - Becket Fund
  27. Judging Samuel Alito on Abortion Rights - NPR
  28. [PDF] ACLU NJ v. Schundler
  29. Opposition to the Confirmation of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
  30. Judge Alito's First Amendment Vigilance on the Third Circuit
  31. Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination - NBC News
  32. Bush Drops Miers, Picks Alito for Court - CQ Almanac Online Edition
  33. President Nominates Judge Samuel A. Alito as Supreme Court Justice
  34. Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present) - Senate.gov
  35. Conservatives Assuaged by Alito Nomination - NPR
  36. Samuel Alito Gets Big Boost from Harriet Miers Fiasco
  37. Reactions to the Alito Nomination - NPR
  38. Seeking to Heal Breach With His Core Supporters
  39. - CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL A ...
  40. Excerpts From Alito's Confirmation Hearing - The New York Times
  41. What conservative justices said about Roe v. Wade at their ... - NPR
  42. Alito disavows controversial group - NBC News
  43. Alito Joined ROTC While at Princeton - The Washington Post
  44. Vanguard Ruling Defended - The Washington Post
  45. Alito Says Investment Cases Did Not Violate Ethics Rules
  46. Roll Call Vote 109 th Congress - 2 nd Session - Senate.gov
  47. Senate approves Alito, 58-42 - SCOTUSblog
  48. Alito's Supreme Court Nomination Confirmed - NPR
  49. The Distinctive Role of Justice Samuel Alito - The Yale Law Journal
  50. [PDF] The Contextual Textualism of Justice Alito
  51. [PDF] The Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito
  52. The Originalist Jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito – J. Joel Alicea
  53. Tradition-based Originalism and the Supreme Court - AEI
  54. Alito Tells Originalists to Stop Being 'Insecure' - Law.com
  55. Justice Samuel Alito explains originalism's pitfalls and promises
  56. [PDF] 19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (06/24/2022)
  57. Justices Back Ban on Method of Abortion - The New York Times
  58. PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic ...
  59. McDonald v. Chicago | Oyez
  60. [PDF] 20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)
  61. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen | Oyez
  62. https://www.fedsoc.org/case/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-v-bruen
  63. [PDF] 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia (06/17/2021) - Supreme Court
  64. [PDF] 21-418 Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (06/27/2022)
  65. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal ...
  66. Opinion analysis: Court strikes down public-sector union fees ...
  67. https://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1466/
  68. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Oyez
  69. Alito Defends Citizens United in Speech to Federalist Society
  70. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | Oyez
  71. [PDF] 21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (06/30/2023) - Supreme Court
  72. [PDF] 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County (06/15/2020) - Supreme Court
  73. BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu
  74. [PDF] 20-1530 West Virginia v. EPA (06/30/2022) - Supreme Court
  75. [PDF] 21-499 Vega v. Tekoh (06/23/2022) - Supreme Court
  76. Vega v. Tekoh - Harvard Law Review
  77. Search & Seizure Supreme Court Cases
  78. [PDF] 22-58 United States v. Texas (06/23/2023) - Supreme Court
  79. Samuel Alito says he isn't calling for overturning same-sex marriage ...
  80. Supreme Court declines to hear cases on gun laws, American ...
  81. Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We're Really Busy Now ...
  82. The Supreme Court: Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
  83. Who is Martha-Ann Alito? Controversial wife of Supreme Court ...
  84. Justice Alito's Wife Has Managed to Avoid the Spotlight Until Now
  85. Justice Alito Reports No Gifts, 1 Trip and an Active Stock Portfolio
  86. [PDF] ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in ...
  87. Former Students Weigh In on Alito - Law.com
  88. Post-Mortems on Judge Alito and Senator Biden
  89. At Seton Hall, Professor Alito Wore a Cloak of Inscrutability
  90. Former students describe Alito as friendly, open-minded
  91. Samuel Alito will release new book next year, publisher says - CNN
  92. Alito Took Unreported Luxury Trip With GOP Donor Paul Singer
  93. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda
  94. Senate Judiciary Committee Releases Revealing Investigative ...
  95. Clarence Thomas has reported receiving only two gifts since 2004
  96. Supreme Court Justices Accepted Hundreds of Gifts Worth Millions ...
  97. Justice Alito files 2024 financial disclosure - SCOTUSblog
  98. This Justice Alito Disclosure Is Fine | Fix the Court
  99. The Alitos, the Neighborhood Clash and the Upside-Down Flag
  100. None
  101. Alito neighbor gives detailed account of 'nasty' dispute that became ...
  102. Another Provocative Flag Was Flown at Another Alito Home
  103. Appeal to Heaven flag: History, symbolism and controversy | AP News
  104. An Appeal to Heaven Flag - WallBuilders
  105. Alito rejects calls to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases ... - PBS
  106. Justice Alito's home flew US flag upside down in 2021, report says
  107. Court Reform Now Task Force: Justice Alito Should Recuse In ...
  108. Sherrill Demands Justice Alito Recuse Himself in Trump Immunity ...
  109. [PDF] Letter from Justice Alito to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse
  110. Alito rejects calls to recuse from Trump, Jan. 6 cases in light of flag ...
  111. Read Justice Alito's letters rejecting calls to recuse himself from Jan ...
  112. Samuel Alito's refusal to recuse himself in Trump v US is another ...
  113. Alito Refuses Calls for Recusal Over Display of Provocative Flags
  114. Why Samuel Alito Recused Himself in Laura Loomer Supreme Court ...
  115. Multiple Recusals — Finally — in Petition Involving Justices' Book ...
User Avatar
No comments yet.