A Justice Who Believes He’s Above Accountability

Justice Samuel Alito presents himself as a principled originalist who respects precedent and follows the highest ethical standards. The reality is starkly different.

Alito accepted luxury trips worth over $100,000 from a billionaire who later had cases before the Court—and didn’t disclose them. He flew insurrection flags at his homes and refused to recuse from January 6 cases. He told a Senator during confirmation hearings that precedent was “settled,” then systematically dismantled 50 years of abortion rights. He secretly recorded telling an activist that America must “return to a place of godliness.”

This isn’t judicial restraint. It’s a justice who believes rules don’t apply to him, that his religious and political views should shape American law, and that accountability is for other people.

Samuel Alito is a case study in why the Supreme Court desperately needs reform.

The Luxury Trip Scandal

In 2023, ProPublica revealed that in July 2008, Justice Alito took a vacation at a luxury Alaska fishing lodge charging over $1,000 per day. He was flown there on a private jet owned by Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and major Republican donor.

If Alito had chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.

Alito never disclosed the trip on his financial disclosure forms, appearing to violate federal law that requires justices to report most gifts. Ethics law experts were clear: failing to disclose private jet travel is a violation.

But the real scandal goes deeper. In the years after that fishing trip, Singer’s hedge fund came before the Supreme Court at least 10 times. In 2014, the Court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s fund and Argentina—a case worth billions to Singer.

Alito never recused himself from any of these cases.

As ProPublica noted, experts could not identify another instance of a Supreme Court justice ruling on cases after receiving expensive gifts from one of the parties. This wasn’t an oversight—it was a pattern of accepting lavish gifts from someone with direct financial interests in his decisions.

The Insurrection Flags

In May 2024, reports revealed that Alito flew an upside-down American flag outside his Virginia home on January 17, 2021—just days after the January 6 insurrection. The upside-down flag had become a symbol of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement and false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

When questioned, Alito claimed he had “no involvement whatsoever” and blamed his wife, saying she briefly placed it in response to a neighbor’s “objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” A former neighbor disputed this account.

But that wasn’t the only flag. The New York Times later reported that an “Appeal to Heaven” flag was displayed outside Alito’s New Jersey beach house in July and September 2023. This flag, which dates to the Revolutionary War, has been adopted by Christian nationalists and was carried by rioters during the Capitol attack.

Both flags sent an unmistakable message: sympathy with those who sought to overturn the 2020 election.

Refusing to Recuse

When the Supreme Court took up two major January 6-related cases—Trump’s immunity claim and the scope of obstruction charges against rioters—Democrats and ethics watchdogs called for Alito to recuse himself. The appearance of bias was obvious.

Alito refused. He offered no explanation beyond asserting that recusal wasn’t warranted. House members alleged an “indisputable appearance of a conflict of interest,” but Alito participated anyway.

This stands in sharp contrast to what Alito said during his 2005 confirmation hearings, where he committed to “impartiality and abiding by the highest ethical standards.” Those commitments now ring hollow.

Alito’s refusal to recuse exemplifies the core problem with the current Supreme Court: there’s no enforceable ethics code, no oversight, no accountability. A justice can fly insurrection symbols at his homes, participate in cases involving the very insurrection those symbols represent, and face zero consequences.

The Secret Recordings: “Return to Godliness”

In June 2024, filmmaker Lauren Windsor secretly recorded Alito at a Supreme Court Historical Society gala while posing as a Catholic conservative. The recordings were explosive.

Alito told Windsor that on fundamental issues, “one side or the other is going to win” and that finding common ground is difficult “because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”

When Windsor suggested that people who believe in God need to keep fighting to “return our country to a place of godliness,” Alito agreed.

These aren’t the words of an impartial arbiter of the law. They’re the words of a culture warrior who sees the Supreme Court as a battlefield in a religious and political war.

When Windsor defended her undercover recording, she asked: “Please tell me how we’re gonna get answers when the Supreme Court has been shrouded in secrecy and really refusing any degree of accountability whatsoever.” She had a point.

The Hypocrisy on Precedent

Perhaps the most brazen hypocrisy involves Alito’s treatment of precedent.

During his 2005 confirmation hearings, Alito told Senator Ted Kennedy that he believed a constitutional right to privacy was “settled” and declared, “I am a believer in precedents.”

Fast forward to 2022. Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alito declared that Roe v. Wade “was egregiously wrong from the start” and overturned 50 years of precedent protecting abortion rights.

The decision was intellectually dishonest from the start. Alito cherry-picked history and precedent to reach his predetermined conclusion. He misused pro-choice scholars’ work, distorting their arguments to support overturning Roe.

Legal scholar John Hart Ely thought Roe was wrong initially but believed Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which reaffirmed Roe in 1992) was correctly decided. Alito cited Ely’s criticism of Roe while ignoring his support for Casey—a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty.

The criteria Alito claimed to use for overturning precedent—that it be “egregiously wrong” and have left things “unsettled”—were selectively applied. Roe had been reaffirmed, relied upon by millions, and settled for decades. But Alito wanted it gone, so he invented reasons to justify the outcome he desired.

A Pattern of Ideology Over Law

These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re a pattern:

  • Accept luxury gifts from billionaires with cases before the Court? No problem.
  • Fail to disclose those gifts as required by law? Ignore it.
  • Fly insurrection flags at your homes? Blame your wife.
  • Refuse to recuse from cases involving that insurrection? Assert your prerogative.
  • Tell activists you want America to “return to godliness”? Claim impartiality.
  • Promise senators you respect precedent, then overturn 50 years of settled law? Rewrite history to justify it.

This is a justice who believes he answers to no one—not ethics laws, not recusal standards, not his own confirmation hearing promises. A justice who sees himself as a soldier in a religious and political crusade, not an impartial arbiter of the law.

The Wall Street Journal Pre-Buttal

Alito’s contempt for accountability reached new heights when ProPublica prepared to publish its investigation into the Alaska fishing trip. Rather than answer ProPublica’s questions, Alito wrote a pre-emptive opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal defending himself before the story even ran.

The Wall Street Journal piece was supposed to undermine ProPublica’s reporting. Instead, it drew more attention to the scandal and demonstrated Alito’s belief that he could control the narrative through friendly conservative media.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse later requested information about Alito’s Wall Street Journal interview, noting that Alito appeared to “offer an improper opinion regarding a question that might come before the Court” in the context of an ongoing legal dispute—a serious ethical breach in itself.

What This Means for Reform

Samuel Alito is exhibit A for why Supreme Court reform is essential.

He violates disclosure laws and faces no consequences. He displays symbols of insurrection and refuses to recuse from related cases. He promises senators he respects precedent, then systematically dismantles it. He tells activists America must return to “godliness” while claiming to be an impartial judge.

And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

The Supreme Court has no enforceable ethics code. There’s no mechanism to discipline justices who violate ethical norms. There’s no way to force recusal when conflicts of interest are obvious. Justices serve for life, answerable to no one.

This isn’t a bug in the system—it’s the inevitable result of giving nine unelected people unchecked power with lifetime tenure and zero accountability.

Alito’s conduct proves that the Court won’t reform itself. The justices who most need oversight are the ones who insist they don’t need it. Without structural reform—term limits, an enforceable ethics code, expansion, or jurisdiction stripping—nothing will change.

Conclusion: A Justice Unbound

Samuel Alito presents the most dangerous combination: ideological certainty, complete power, and zero accountability.

He accepts gifts from billionaires with cases before him. He flies insurrection flags. He refuses to recuse. He demolishes precedent he promised to respect. He tells activists he wants to return America to “godliness.” And he does it all without consequence.

This is what an accountability-free Supreme Court looks like. This is why reform isn’t optional—it’s essential.

Because when Supreme Court justices are literally and figuratively above the law, democracy itself is in danger.