Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court's most predictable conservative of late, is again fighting complaints that some of his actions require him to recuse himself from pending cases.
Alito has responded that he is the victim of unfair criticism.
Here's a look at some of the recent controversies.
What is the upside down flag incident about?
Last week, the New York Times published a photograph showing an American flag flying upside down in front of Alito's home on January 17, 2021.
Neighbors reported seeing the flag flying for several days after supporters of outgoing President Trump rioted at the US Capitol.
For some, the inverted flag became a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement.
How did Alito respond to complaints about the flag incident?
He blamed his wife, Martha-Ann, and his neighbors.
“I had no involvement in the raising of the flag,” he told the New York Times in an email.
Speaking to a Fox News reporter, he said a neighbor had made vulgar comments to his wife.
Alito suggested it was unfair to criticize him for the upside-down flag because it was his wife's idea and she had been provoked by neighbors.
He did not explain whether he was concerned about this display of the flag or why he did not immediately insist that it be lowered.
Some liberal groups have demanded that Alito recuse himself from proceedings involving Trump. But there is no indication that Alito will stop deciding the pending case over whether Trump can be prosecuted for “official acts” he performed as president.
Are these the first calls for Alito to recuse himself?
No. Last year, Alito gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal complaining about the treatment of Supreme Court justices.
“We are being hit daily. And no one, practically no one, defends us,” he told two opinion editors at the Wall Street Journal, who regularly defends Alito and the conservative court. “We are being bombed. …This kind of concerted attack on the court and individual judges” is “new in my lifetime.”
One of the drafters, Washington lawyer David B. Rivkin, had helped draft an appeal petition asking the court to take up a major tax case and rule that the Constitution prohibits liens on undistributed corporate profits.
Two months later, when the court voted to hear the case, Senate Democrats and progressive groups asked that Alito recuse himself from ruling on the matter.
The judge issued a harsh reply. There is “no valid reason for my recusal in this case. When Rivkin participated in interviews and co-authored articles, he did so as a journalist, not as an advocate. The case he is involved in was never mentioned.”
The court must issue a decision in that case, Moore v. United States, in the coming weeks.
How did Alito respond to complaints that some judges did not disclose free trips?
Alito was upset last summer when he learned that ProPublica was about to publish a story about a free fishing trip he took to Alaska on a private jet owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.
The nonprofit investigative group had previously revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had regularly taken free, undisclosed vacations with Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.
Like Thomas, Alito did not mention the 2008 luxury trip as a gift in the required court disclosure report.
When ProPublica sent him several questions about the upcoming story, Alito declined to comment through a court spokeswoman and then tried to debunk the “false charges” in the Journal before the story could appear.
What he described as trumped-up charges involved whether he knew or should have known that Singer's hedge fund was involved in appeals to the high court.
Singer's hedge fund, NML Capital, had pursued an aggressive strategy of buying Argentina bonds at a discount when the country defaulted in 2001 and then fighting in U.S. courts to be paid in full. This 14-year battle between what Argentines called the “vultures” and Singer's hedge funds appeared often in the legal and financial press, including the Wall Street Journal.
Singer is a major Republican donor and gave Alito enthusiastic introductions when he spoke before the Federalist Society and the Manhattan Institute.
ProPublica said Singer's hedge fund was involved in 10 appeals that came before the court. In 2014, the justices agreed to decide a key issue and ruled 7-1 in favor of Singer's hedge fund with Alito in the majority. In the end, Singer's hedge fund received $2.4 billion for his bonuses.
In an article in the Journal, Alito said he had no duty to recuse himself from speaking in the case because he “did not know nor had good reason to know that Mr. Singer had an interest” in the cases involving Argentine bonds. When the court agreed to decide the case of “Argentine Republic vs. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear” in the legal briefs, he said.
Yes, “he introduced me before I gave a speech, as have dozens of other people… On no occasion have we discussed his business activities, and we have never discussed any case or issue before the Court,” he wrote Alito. .
