The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> unveiled a formal ethics code this week amid <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/key-allegations-against-clarence-thomas-democrats-call-probe-1819296">scrutiny</a> from the media and Congress over concerns that the justices have failed to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/longtime-thomas-friend-hits-back-at-democratic-probe-into-financial-records" target="_blank" rel="noopener">properly disclose gifts</a> and did not recuse themselves in cases in which they might have a conflict of interest.
A <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15-page document</a>, featuring a statement at the top and a &#8220;Code of Conduct&#8221; below, was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_11-13-23" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> to the high court&#8217;s website on Monday. All nine members, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, signed off on adhering to the five &#8220;canon&#8221; rules.
The five canons, many of which included subsections, said a justice &#8220;should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary,&#8221; &#8220;should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,&#8221; &#8220;should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently,&#8221; &#8220;may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office,&#8221; and &#8220;should refrain from political activity.&#8221;
A &#8220;statement of the Court&#8221; offered a brief explanation for drawing out an ethics code without getting into specific media reports on ethical questions and a lack of transparency that have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-cites-safety-concerns-for-private-jet-travel-after-dobbs-leak" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dogged conservative</a> justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">liberal Justice</a> Sonia Sotomayor in recent months while fueling an <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-announces-judiciary-committee-will-no-longer-vote-to-authorize-subpoena-for-robin-arkley-following-cooperation-in-supreme-court-ethics-investigation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation led by the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.
&#8220;The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court,&#8221; the statement said.
&#8220;For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice,&#8221; the statement added.
&#8220;The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.&#8221;

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reveals Ethics Code For Justices

Clarence Thomas

Ethics

John Roberts

Judiciary

Samuel Alito

Sonia Sotomayor

U.S.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett this week called for the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code, calling it a &#8220;good idea.&#8221;
Barrett made the remark during a University of Minnesota Law School event on Monday.
&#8220;It would be a good idea for us to do it,&#8221; Barrett said during a discussion at the event with Robert Stein, a longtime law professor and the American Bar Association&#8217;s former chief operating officer.
&#8220;Particularly so that we can communicate to the public exactly what it is that we are doing in a clearer way,&#8221; Barrett added.
Barrett noted that her fellow justices broadly support the idea of an ethics code such as the ones lower court judges follow.
&#8220;There is no lack of consensus among the justices,&#8221; she <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/amy-coney-barrett-says-supreme-court-ethics-rules-good-idea-rcna120718" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;There&#8217;s unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible.&#8221;
The Supreme Court is currently the only court in the federal judiciary that does not require its nine justices to adhere to a formal code of ethics. Although they do not have a formal ethics code, justices do follow other rules such as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/31/financial-disclosures-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito-scotus-00113595" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filing</a> financial disclosure reports every year.
In April, Justice Clarence Thomas defended traveling with his close friend Harlan Crow, a real estate magnate and billionaire Republican donor, after allegations that he failed to report the trips.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1697304159818000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1PnpIbvspZalTqN1iLUDpA">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-shreds-leftist-hit-piece-have-always-sought-to-comply-with-the-disclosure-guidelines" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-scotus-justice-took-3m-from-book-publisher-didnt-recuse-from-its-cases" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attracted ethics concerns</a> around her literary career. Sotomayor&#8217;s taxpayer-funded court staff have been repeatedly involved in setting up speaking events to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promote</a> her memoir and children’s books, which have earned the justice at least $3.7 million.
Justice Samuel Alito was also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-contributor-exploits-missing-sub-tragedy-to-wish-death-on-scotus-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accused</a> of not properly reporting a luxury fishing trip he took to Alaska in 2008, during which he reportedly traveled on a private jet with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Alito was also accused of failing to recuse himself from cases involving Singer.
Alito responded to the criticism in June, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?ns=prod/accounts-wsj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> that he had no obligation to recuse himself from any of the cases in question because he was unaware of Singer&#8217;s connection to any of them. He added that he had only met Singer on a &#8220;handful of occasions,&#8221; and the two only ever engaged in small talk.
At least two other justices have <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/08/04/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-code" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> they <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/07/justice-kavanaugh-ethics-supreme-court/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">support</a> implementing an official ethics code as well, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“I’m hopeful that there will be some concrete steps taken soon on that,” Kavanaugh said last month.

Senators Meet With Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Says Supreme Court Ethics Code Is A ‘Good Idea’

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Says Supreme Court Ethics Code Is A 'Good Idea'

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

The Democratic senator who suggested that the federal government <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sheldon-whitehouse-suggests-fbi-shouldnt-investigate-supreme-court-leaker" target="_blank" rel="noopener">not investigate</a> who leaked Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade — citing &#8220;separation of powers&#8221; — is now pressuring Chief Justice John Roberts with an ethics complaint targeting Alito concerning congressional investigations into the Court.
Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act in July.
Alito, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/samuel-alito-the-supreme-courts-plain-spoken-defender-precedent-ethics-originalism-5e3e9a7?st=4765zed61auy3j2&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speaking</a> to The Wall Street Journal, said he and the other justices on the court voluntarily followed disclosure statutes that applied to lower-court judges and executive-branch officials. He noted, “Congress did not create the Supreme Court”— the Constitution did — adding, “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.”
In a <a href="https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/09/2023-09-04-Complaint-from-Sen.-Whitehouse-Enclosure.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seven-page letter</a> to Roberts, Whitehouse complained, “As the author of the bill in question and as a participant in the related investigations, I feel acutely the targeting of this work by Justice Alito, and consider it more than just misguided or accidental general opining. It is directed to my work.”
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation encompasses reports that Justice Alito accepted but did not disclose gifts of travel and lodging valued in the tens of thousands of dollars,” Whitehouse wrote, likely referring to a report from the left-leaning group Pro Publica. “Further investigation may reveal additional information that Justice Alito would prefer not come to light. The facts as already reported suggest that Justice Alito likely violated the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act.”
Alito fired back at the Pro Publica claims in June, writing in <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>, “When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of ‘hospitality’ to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-faces-backlash-over-membership-to-all-white-club">RELATED: Dem Sen Whitehouse Faces Backlash Over Membership To Alleged All-White Club</a>
After the draft of Alito’s opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade was leaked, causing a national furor, Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy contended that the leaker should be fired, disbarred, and prosecuted.
Whitehouse responded by suggesting that the FBI should not be investigating the matter, saying, “It&#8217;s an interesting separation of powers question why FBI agents from the executive branch would be running around within the Supreme Court, interviewing clerks and staff and justices themselves, if it’s not appropriate for Congress to exercise its legislative powers with regard to those standards.”
But in his complaint to the Supreme Court, Whitehouse appeared to use a reverse of the argument, condemning Justice Alito’s statement in an interview that “[n]o provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, period.&#8221; Whitehouse wrote, &#8220;Those arguments assert (in my view wrongly) that our constitutional separation of powers blocks any congressional action in this area, which in turn is asserted (also wrongly, in my view) to block any congressional investigation.&#8221;

Supreme Court Justice Alito Gives Talk At Georgetown Law School

Dem Senator Who Argued Against Investigating Leak Of Alito’s Roe Draft Targets Alito

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Sheldon Whitehouse

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously strengthened religious liberty in the workplace Thursday, ruling in favor of a Christian postal worker who lost his job for refusing to work on Sundays.
The Court’s unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, overruled the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the United States Postal Service (USPS) did not violate the religious accommodation rights of postal worker Gerald Groff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 
“This decision will give those religious minorities a fair shot in court and, one would hope, encourage more employers to adopt more inclusive workplace policies so that religious employees won’t have to choose between their livelihood and their faith,” Joshua McDaniel, director of Harvard Law School&#8217;s Religious Liberty Clinic, <a href="https://time.com/6291256/groff-dejoy-religious-freedom-supreme-court/">said</a>.
After clarifying Title VII’s requirements, the Court gave the case back to the Third Circuit to retry the case because of its factual complexity. This means that either Groff or the USPS could eventually prevail, but the USPS — and all employers — must meet a much higher standard to deny a religious accommodation.
Groff, an Evangelical Christian and longtime employee of the USPS, never worked Sundays in line with his religious beliefs and his initial job description. But when the USPS started to deliver packages on Sundays because of a deal with Amazon, the postal service would require him to work on his Sabbath. To avoid conflict, he transferred to a different location. 
His new location started delivering on Sundays, and he claimed that USPS “progressive[ly] discipline[d]” him because he refused to work Sundays. He then resigned and sued the USPS for religious discrimination. The Third Circuit rejected his claim. 
The controversy in this case surrounded a 50-year-old standard from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, the Court held that an employer could deny an accommodation if it causes a “more than de minimis cost” — a legal term meaning that anything more than a “very small” cost would be enough for an employer to legally deny any religious accommodation.  
The Court held that Title VII’s “undue hardship” language requires employers to show that the accommodation would impose a burden that “is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” Justice Alito stated that a business proving the accommodation would cause a small cost is not enough “to establish &#8216;undue hardship&#8217; under Title VII.” This means that an employer now needs to show a substantial hardship would be caused by the religious accommodation in order to deny it. 
“[Costs imposed on a business due to a religious accommodation] would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding &#8230; ‘undue’ means that the &#8230; burden &#8230; or adversity must rise to an ‘excessive&#8217; or ‘unjustifiable’ level,” Alito wrote. “When ‘undue hardship’ is understood in this way, it means something very different from &#8230; something that is ‘very small or trifling.’”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
As Justice Alito notes, the low standard from a previous case has been used by lower courts to deny many religious people even the most minor accommodations for firmly-held religious beliefs. According to <a href="https://www.becketlaw.org/hardison/#:~:text=45%20years%20ago%2C%20the,protections%20for%20people%20of%20faith.">Becket Law</a>, a religious liberty law firm, 86% of religious accommodation claims under the now-struck-down de minimis test have been denied.
For instance, Muslim women have been <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-174/255821/20230228143330165_2023-02-28%20Groff%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">discriminated</a> against for wearing a hijab, Apostolic Pentecostal <a href="https://www.mscklaw.com/blog/2016/11/religious-woman-denied-job-for-wearing-long-skirt/">women</a> have been <a href="https://nypost.com/2017/09/29/religious-woman-sues-restaurant-over-employee-dress-code/">denied</a> the ability to wear skirts instead of pants, and Sikh men have been <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-174/238562/20220922133906377_22-174_ACB%20-%20pdfA.pdf">denied</a> the ability to wear turbans and grow out beards.
The decision was supported in briefs by many religious groups, including <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-174/255807/20230228140147824_Groff%20OU%20Amicus%20brief%20FINAL.pdf">Orthodox Jews</a>, Muslims, Sikhs, and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-174/255875/20230228182814363_22-174%20tsac%20SDA.pdf">Christians</a>. The decision will likely give religious employees more protection for religious accommodations in the workplace going forward.

Crucifix on Bible

SCOTUS Unanimously Strengthens Religious Liberty In The Workplace

SCOTUS Unanimously Strengthens Religious Liberty

Christianity

Courts

Religious Freedom

Religious Liberty

SCOTUS

United States Postal Service (USPS)

USPS

A challenge from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/texas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Texas</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/louisiana" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Louisiana</a> to President Joe Biden’s deportation policies was rejected by the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> in a decision released Friday. 
The suit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, had hoped to overturn Biden’s deportation policy, which they argued violated federal law by focusing primarily on the deportation of those with criminal convictions or terrorist connections, and not by deporting all illegal immigrants regardless of criminal status. 
&#8220;They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests,&#8221; Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in an 8-1 majority opinion. &#8220;Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”
Justice Samuel Alito argued that Texas did have standing to challenge the policy, saying that the majority opinion harmed the ability of the states to push back on executive authority. 
The decision, &#8220;holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare — withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing.”
Alito argued that the decision was “deeply flawed” and could prevent states from protecting their “vital interests.”
“If a President fails or refuses to enforce the immigration laws, the States must simply bear the consequences. That interpretation of executive authority and Article III’s case or controversy requirement is deeply and dangerously flawed,” he added. 
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The policy that prompted the suit was outlined in a <a href="https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">September 2021 memorandum</a> from Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
“The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them,” Mayorkas said, claiming that the DHS did not have the resources to deport everyone illegally entering the country. 
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-takes-up-major-immigration-case-between-texas-and-biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">memo was vacated</a> by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit refused to put the ruling on hold while the Biden administration appealed the decision. The appeals court asked the Supreme Court to freeze the decision, but the high court ruled that the decision could stay in effect and agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge.
Arguments on the case were heard in November.

Secretary Mayorkas Testifies Before Senate Homeland Committee On 2024 Budget

Supreme Court Makes Decision On Republican AG’s Challenge To Biden Deportation Policy

Alejandro Mayorkas

Deportations

Louisiana

Texas

The Nation&#8217;s justice correspondent and regular MSNBC guest Elie Mystal exploited the tragedy of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/we-signed-waivers-that-would-curl-your-toes-says-cbs-reporter-whos-been-aboard-missing-sub" target="_blank" rel="noopener">missing Titanic submarine</a> in order to make a joke about killing off Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Mystal sent the tweet on Wednesday, suggesting that someone should offer Alito a trip to visit the submerged wreckage of the R.M.S. Titanic — even as the submersible carrying five people to do just that remains missing with just a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/coast-guard-estimates-missing-titanic-sub-has-40-hours-of-breathable-air-left" target="_blank" rel="noopener">few more hours</a> of breathable air.
&#8220;Next time some rich white person wants to take Sam Alito on an expensive trip, please take him to see the Titanic,&#8221; Mystal tweeted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Next time some rich white person wants to take Sam Alito on an expensive trip, please take him to see the Titanic.
&mdash; Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1671540056287244289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mystal&#8217;s tweet appeared to be a response to a <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4060023-alito-propublica-report-on-luxury-vacation-misleading/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ProPublica report</a> claiming that Alito had not properly reported a luxury fishing trip he took to Alaska in 2008 — a trip during which he was flown on a private jet with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. The report also claimed that cases involving Singer had come before the court, suggesting that Alito should have recused himself and did not.
Alito <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">responded to the report</a> in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, saying, &#8220;Neither charge is valid.&#8221;
&#8220;I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate,&#8221; Alito wrote, adding, &#8220;ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. &#8216;There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties&#8217; (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard.&#8221;
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
He went on to explain that he was not obligated to report the travel under his financial disclosures because items that fell under the heading of &#8220;hospitality&#8221; had not been subject to reporting requirements until just a few months earlier — years after the trip in question occurred.
&#8220;Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that &#8216;[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,&#8217; and &#8216;hospitality&#8217; was defined to include &#8216;hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, &#8230; on property or facilities owned by [a] person &#8230;&#8217; Section 109(14). The term &#8216;facilities&#8217; was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation,&#8221; he wrote.

American Violence And The Trump Insurgency: Malcolm Nance In Conversation With Elie Mystal

MSNBC Contributor Exploits Missing Sub Tragedy To Wish Death On SCOTUS Justice

Media

MSNBC

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that he has a “pretty good” idea who was behind the leak of the court&#8217;s decision on overturning Roe v. Wade — and that the leak made the justices targets for possible assassination.
Alito, who authored the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization decision that ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion, made the comments in an <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-samuel-alito-this-made-us-targets-of-assassination-dobbs-leak-abortion-court-74624ef9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with The Wall Street Journal. 
“I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody,” Alito said: “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft &#8230; from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside — as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”
Alito said that the Supreme Court “did a good job with the resources that were available,&#8221; but said that the evidence was not strong enough for an official designation of guilt. 
The conservative justice added that the leak not only brought an environment of “suspicion and distrust,” but also danger. 
“Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” Alito said. “It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.”
He also called it infuriating that some people believed a conservative justice may have leaked the decision. “Look, this made us targets of assassination. Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.”
The court was ultimately undeterred by the pressure and voted to overturn Roe.

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito And Elena Kagan Testify Before The House Appropriations Committee

Justice Alito Has ‘Good Idea’ Of Who Leaked Dobbs Opinion; Suggests Motive Was Assassination

Justice Alito Says He Has ‘Good Idea’ Of Who Leaked Dobbs Decision

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/samuel-alito" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Samuel Alito</a> recently discussed the reality of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free speech</a> on college campuses and law schools, pointing to the disturbing culture surrounding the lack of free dialogue. 
During a discussion at the Heritage Foundation, Alito was <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-takes-direct-aim-at-law-schools-for-abysmal-and-dangerous-free-speech-climate-as-conservative-judges-boycott-his-alma-mater/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> about the situation on college campuses, as well as law schools, regarding freedom of speech. He said it is “pretty abysmal,” “disgraceful,” and “really dangerous for our future as a united, democratic country.”
“We depend on freedom of speech,” Alito said. “Colleges and universities should be setting the example, and law schools should be setting the example for the university because our adversary system is based on the principle that the best way to get at the truth is to have a strong presentation of opposing views. So, law schools should be free to speak their minds without worrying about the consequences, and they should have their ideas tested in rational debating.”
He pointed to different reports about law school campuses, as well as discussions he has held with students, where free speech has been an issue but was not specific about which schools to which he was referring. 
Alito <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-alito-calls-law-school-free-speech-abysmal-2022-10-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> &#8220;based on what I have read and what has been told to me by students,&#8221; some law schools are &#8220;really not carrying out their responsibility&#8221; to safeguard the speech of students and &#8220;have their ideas tested in rational debating.”
Alito went on to discuss his beliefs about different types of speech when asked about “protected and unprotected speech.”
He <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzRqIcXPmKw&amp;t=2820s&amp;ab_channel=TheHeritageFoundation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the Justices he has disagreed with in the past generally agree with him about the importance of free speech. 
“The real test, as Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, is whether we’re willing to protect the speech that we hate,” he said. 
“Any speech involving public interests, involving politics, government, history, economics, law, science, religion, philosophy, the arts — anything of that level of importance — the general rule has to be the government has to stay out,” he said, adding that the First Amendment doesn’t safeguard “the right of anybody to say anything they want” whenever they feel like it.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-says-leaked-draft-opinion-overruling-roe-v-wade-made-majority-targets-for-assassination" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>, Alito also said that the leaked draft majority opinion to get rid of Roe v. Wade risked the lives of some of the Justices. 
“The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us,” Alito said.
Last month, U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho said that judges shouldn’t hire Yale law students due to the “cancel culture” at the school. He discussed an incident that happened in March when Yale students interrupted a discussion with an attorney who defended a Colorado baker who wouldn’t bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. Ho <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/10/21/free-speech-concerns-prompt-calls-shun-yale-law-grads" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed</a> out that the students hadn’t been punished for their actions, which meant “Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views—it practices it.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch joined the decision not to hire Yale students earlier this month.

6C4EBAC9-9660-4E09-80FC-69D6A5A2CA45_1_201_a

Justice Alito Discusses ‘Pretty Abysmal,’ ‘Disgraceful’ Free Speech Situation At Colleges, Law Schools

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Discusses ‘Pretty Abysmal,’ ‘Disgraceful’ Free Speech Situation At Colleges, Law Schools

College

Education

Free Speech

Politics

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> Justice Samuel Alito said Tuesday during a Heritage Foundation event that the initial leaked draft majority opinion to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision put some justices&#8217; lives in danger.
&#8220;The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us,&#8221; Alito told the Heritage Foundation&#8217;s John G. Malcolm, who asked the justice how the leak affected the court.
On May 2 of this year, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">POLITICO</a> published the draft from Dobbs v Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization from an unidentified source.
Almost two months later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the monumental Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion across America.
Alito wrote that Roe and a subsequent case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe must be overturned, and the right to allow, deny, or restrict the right to an abortion must reside with states.
The 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization followed the early May leak of the draft opinion indicating which way the justices would rule. That leak prompted nationwide protests, particularly in Washington, D.C., and dozens of acts of vandalism were reported at pro-life organizations, centers, and churches, which probed Chief Justice John Roberts to launch an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure.
No information on who leaked the draft has been made public.
&#8220;It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,&#8221; Alito said. &#8220;And it was a shock because nothing like that had happened in the past,&#8221; adding that the leak changed the atmosphere of the court during the remainder of the term.
Alito further noted that during the time between the leaked draft and the final decision, a California man allegedly threatened to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/man-pleads-not-guilty-trying-kill-justice-kavanaugh-rcna34874">NBC News</a> reports authorities arrested Nicholas John Roske, of Simi Valley, California, in June near Justice Kavanaugh&#8217;s home armed with a handgun, a knife, pepper spray, and burglary tools. Roske pleaded not guilty to the charge.
&#8220;It&#8217;s a pending case, so I won&#8217;t say anything more about that,&#8221; Alito said.
The threats against the nation&#8217;s highest court have continued since the overturning.
According to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/alito-says-leaked-abortion-opinion-made-conservative-justices-targets-rcna54033">NBC</a>, authorities arrested a Georgia man last week after police found him driving in Washington with two handguns and a shotgun, planning to &#8220;deliver documents&#8221; to the Supreme Court.
Alito switched gears after discussing the dangers he and other conservative Justices faced.
&#8220;But that was last term,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Now where we&#8217;re in a new term. I think that all of us . . . want things to get back to normal — the way they were before all of this last term . . . before COVID . . . [to] get back to normal to the greatest degree possible — and that&#8217;s what we hope will happen.&#8221;
&#8220;I think everybody is working on that,&#8221; he added.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="LIVE Q&amp;A with Justice Alito at The Heritage Foundation" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WzRqIcXPmKw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Mary Margaret Olohan contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Justice Alito Says Leaked Draft Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade Made Majority ‘Targets For Assassination’

Justice Alito Says Leaked Draft Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade Made Majority 'Targets For Assassination'

Abortion

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/samuel-alito">Samuel Alito</a> slammed foreign leaders who attacked the Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization.
Speaking at the University of Notre Dame&#8217;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uci4uni608E&amp;t=1467s">Religious Liberty Summit</a> last week, Justice Alito fired back at a number of foreign leaders who criticized the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">Dobbs decision</a>, which overturned Roe v. Wade and restored power to the states to legislate the issue of abortion. Alito poked fun at some of them, including ousted former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Prince Harry, who gave an impassioned lament at the United Nations comparing Dobbs to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Alito prefaced his comments by talking about a crisis of shrinking freedom of religious speech from foreign courts, which he intended to criticize. “I think we can see this sort of narrowing, particularly in the area of religious speech in the jurisprudence of some countries that profess to be dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience,&#8221; Alito said. &#8220;Now when I was putting these remarks together, I was tempted at this point to provide some examples. I am not a diplomat &#8230; I wouldn&#8217;t be very bad about it, but it was unusual for me, this sort of diplomatic impulse came upon me, and I said to myself, &#8216;you&#8217;re an American judge, and what business is it of yours to criticize decisions that are handed down by foreign courts?’”
Alito then said that he was perfectly within his rights to criticize because of the criticism he received over the Dobbs decision.
“I&#8217;ve had some second thoughts over the last few weeks, since I had the honor this [Supreme Court] term of writing the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders, who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,&#8221; he said, eliciting a few laughs from the audience. &#8220;One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price,&#8221; Alito said, as the audience broke into laughter and applause. &#8220;Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right?&#8221; Alito joked.
&#8220;But others are still in office,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;[French] President [Emmanuel] Macron, and [Canadian] Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau, I believe, are two. But what really wounded me, what really wounded me, was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations, and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine.&#8221;
Alito, however, took the high road. &#8220;Well, despite this temptation, I&#8217;m not gonna talk about cases from other countries,&#8221; he said. &#8220;All I&#8217;m gonna say is that, ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law.&#8221;
Johnson, Macron, Trudeau, and other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americas-foreign-allies-some-with-stricter-abortion-laws-than-u-s-lament-supreme-court-abortion-decision">foreign leaders</a> criticized the United States after the Dobbs decision was released. Johnson called the move a “big step backward.”
“I’ve always believed in a woman’s right to choose, and I stick to that view,” Johnson said. “And that’s why the U.K. has the laws that it does.” Johnson was forced to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-boris-johnson-resigns-as-great-britains-prime-minister">resign</a> in July over allegations that he held parties during the COVID lockdowns.
At a speech to the United Nations in July, Prince Harry called the Dobbs decision part of a “a global assault on democracy and freedom.”

Justice Alito Claps Back At Foreign Leaders Who Criticized ‘Dobbs’ Decision

Justice Alito Responds To Foreign Leaders Who Criticized 'Dobbs' Decision

Boris Johnson

Dobbs

Prince Harry

New reports suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">lobbied hard</a> to prevent the more conservative members of the Supreme Court — namely Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — from voting to <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/pope-says-he-respects-supreme-court-decision-that-overturned-roe/">overturn Roe v. Wade</a>.
Roberts ultimately voted with the six-justice majority upholding a new Mississippi abortion law — capping abortions at 15 weeks — in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but joined the four-justice minority in voting to uphold Roe. However, he did pen his own dissenting opinion stating that he would have opened the door for states to impose stricter limits on abortions, particularly after the first trimester.
And according to recent reporting, Roberts worked diligently to bring the conservative justices around — until someone leaked an early opinion draft indicating the landmark abortion case, along with the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey, could be in danger.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">CNN reported</a> that Roberts had been focused on swaying the two newest justices — Kavanaugh and Barrett — but that he had been derailed somewhat when the leaked draft, authored by Justice Alito, became public.
&#8220;Roberts’ persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play,&#8221; the report stated. &#8220;He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.&#8221;
The report also concluded that Roberts&#8217; efforts, however fervent, did not appear to be moving the needle with regard to Kavanaugh and Barrett even before the leak — and added that if threats against their families was not enough to sway them from their position, it was unlikely the Chief Justice would have been successful.
CNN&#8217;s &#8220;New Day&#8221; covered the topic on Tuesday morning as well:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
New CNN reporting from <a href="https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoanBiskupic</a>: Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied his fellow conservative justices to preserve Roe v. Wade – but the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion may have doomed his efforts. <a href="https://t.co/g0fKkIT14f">pic.twitter.com/g0fKkIT14f</a>
&mdash; New Day (@NewDay) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1551892687447531522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A number of critics followed the decision overturning Roe with accusations against Kavanaugh and Barrett specifically, claiming that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-blasting-abortion-decision-suggests-kavanaugh-gorsuch-lied-hear-rcna35208">they had lied</a> during their Senate confirmation hearings when they stated that the 1973 decision was &#8220;precedent.&#8221;
But both also declined to answer any questions about how they might vote in future cases — as those questions were rooted in hypotheticals — and precedents have been overturned in the past when the law was later found to be unjust. Examples of those include Plessy v. Ferguson — which allowed racial segregation under the banner of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; and was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education — and Korematsu v. United States, under which Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in internment camps while the United States battled the Empire of Japan in World War II.

Chief Justice Roberts Lobbied Court Conservatives Hard To Salvage Roe: Report

Neil Gorsuch

ShutDownDC announced on Friday that organizers would pay anyone who could tip protesters off to the locations of the conservative Supreme Court justices — and the price increased if they were still at the named location 30 minutes later.
The call for tips went out after news broke that Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/police-arrest-armed-man-near-brett-kavanaughs-home-who-allegedly-wanted-to-kill-the-justice-report/">Brett Kavanaugh</a> had been forced to leave Morton&#8217;s Steak House in Washington, D.C., through a rear exit in order to avoid a crowd of protesters gathered outside the restaurant.
&#8220;DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! We&#8217;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#8217;re still there 30 mins after your message,&#8221; @ShutDown_DC&#8217;s tweet read.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! 
We&#39;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#39;re still there 30 mins after your message. <a href="https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7">https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7</a>
&mdash; ShutDownDC (@ShutDown_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShutDown_DC/status/1545421407223521280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Politico&#8217;s Daniel Lippman <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/08/schumer-ups-pressure-on-mcconnell-in-usica-reconciliation-dance-00044652?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014c-2414-d9dd-a5ec-34bc527c0005&amp;nlid=630318">reported</a> on Kavanaugh&#8217;s disrupted dinner departure, noting, &#8220;Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#8217;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#39;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front. A Morton&#39;s rep told me: &quot;Politics … should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW">https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW</a> <a href="https://t.co/jpsfhB3JVo">pic.twitter.com/jpsfhB3JVo</a>
&mdash; Daniel Lippman (@dlippman) <a href="https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1545357451234615298?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lippman reported that Kavanaugh did not actually come into contact with any of the protesters but left the restaurant through a back door without staying for dessert.
A spokesperson from Morton&#8217;s gave a statement after the incident, telling Politico, &#8220;Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.&#8221;
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy questioned Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about the incident, asking whether President Joe Biden and his administration had any issues with protesters continuing to harass the conservative justices outside their homes or in public.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Doocy on Kavanaugh being forced out of a DC restaurant by protesters: &quot;So these Justices, because protesters do not agree with an opinion&#8230; have no right to privacy?&quot;
Jean-Pierre: &quot;This is what a democracy is.&quot;<a href="https://t.co/26EIf4ptiZ">pic.twitter.com/26EIf4ptiZ</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1545472464511197185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;People should be allowed to be able to do that,&#8221; Jean-Pierre replied. &#8220;If it&#8217;s outside of a restaurant, if it&#8217;s peaceful, for sure.&#8221;
Doocy pressed again, asking whether she meant that the administration was signing off on protesters following the justices around simply because they didn&#8217;t like a ruling the court had issued.
&#8220;People have the right — this is what a democracy is,&#8221; Jean-Pierre insisted.

President Trump Gives State Of The Union Address

ShutDownDC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

Shut Down DC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

Menu