U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination and confirmation 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. 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. The committee rates judges as "not qualified", "qualified", or "well qualified".
Leonard Leo was selected to play a role in shepherding Alito's appointment through the Senate. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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." In releasing its report 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."
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. 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. Alito was sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court later that day. He became the
110th justice, the second Italian-American, 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. 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.
Tenure 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. 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 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. In 2023,
Martin–Quinn scores suggested that Alito was the most conservative Supreme Court justice. 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, 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%. 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. 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. 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". Alito has called himself a "practical
originalist" and is a member of the Court's
conservative bloc. He has been described as one of the Court's "most conservative justices". 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. 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". When asked about
political polarization in the United States, he responded, "one side or the other is going to win".
Abortion jurisprudence 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Free speech jurisprudence 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. 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." 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==