2026-10-04T15:00:06-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
塞缪尔·阿利托时隔多年后首次踏入新泽西这片尘土飞扬的棒球场，他不禁停下脚步，仔细打量着球场场地。
他说，当年这里的小石子更大，球场也更不平整。这些细节在旁人看来或许不值一提，但阿利托却看出了更多门道。他解释道，粗糙的场地会让内野手更难接杀滚地球。
“我当时打二垒。我最好的朋友罗尼打游击手。他的臂力更强，所以我们是双杀配合组合，”阿利托说道，随后笑着纠正自己，“在我的幻想里，我们每场比赛都能完成双杀。但现实里，也许也就做到过一两次。”
对少年时期的阿利托来说，棒球是他的热爱，他绝非那种只会在球队顺境时才支持的球迷。他钟爱的费城费城人队曾是大联盟中战绩最差的球队之一。
“如果你仅仅因为球队正处于连败就抛弃自己支持的队伍，那是品格低劣的表现，”他说，“有些人可能会觉得我相当固执，但无论顺境逆境，我始终支持费城人队。希望永远不灭。”
距离阿利托最后一次在这片新泽西球场打球，或是沿着这条路走进母校高中的教学楼，已经过去60年了。他曾是该校的毕业生代表、学生会主席、校报编辑，同时也是辩论队和田径队的核心成员。
“这里看起来既熟悉，又有些不一样，”他环顾四周时说道。
这一天在特伦顿郊外，他穿着休闲，一件略显褶皱的马球衫和卡其色长裤。几乎没人认出他来。没有了黑色法袍，没人会意识到塞缪尔·阿利托是我们这个时代最具影响力的最高法院大法官之一。
哥伦比亚广播公司新闻的简·克劳福德在这片少年时期曾打球的新泽西棒球场的看台上，与阿利托大法官进行了专访。
被描绘成“愤怒”或“刻薄”让阿利托觉得是“漫画式的抹黑”
如今的最高法院常以首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨的名字命名为“罗伯茨法院”，罗伯茨通常是多数意见中的核心人物。但在很多方面，阿利托才是保守派的领袖。多年来他在堕胎、平权行动、投票权和宗教自由等议题上的法律立场，如今已成为美国的法律准则。
在批评者眼中，阿利托是剥夺女性和少数群体权利的反派。他们认为他“脾气暴躁”，其判决源于“不满情绪”或是“想要为60年代的经历复仇”。阿利托称这种形象与本人截然不同。
“有人说我愤怒、刻薄，想要为早年经历报复，这完全是漫画式的抹黑，”阿利托说道。
他表示自己只是在按照制宪者的意图解释宪法。但他对法院的影响远不止于个人投票。
在九名大法官中，阿利托尤其擅长在法院审理的一些最棘手、最具争议的议题上团结五名大法官形成多数意见。其中包括他在“多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案”中撰写的5:4多数意见判决，该判决推翻了“罗伊诉韦德案”，将堕胎问题交由各州自行决定。
这看似是一个矛盾之处：这位常被公开描绘为强硬僵化的大法官，在幕后却是一位独特的保守派，能够在最具分歧的议题上找到共同点。
这种能力正是在汉密尔顿镇的球场和课堂上练就的：他的专注力和对细节的关注、他的忠诚度、他内敛的领导风格，以及他审视全局并调整策略以打出制胜一击的能力。
阿利托几乎对公众聚光灯避之不及，但他已经撰写了自己的第一本书《如此裁定：原旨主义者对宪法、法院和我们国家的看法》。这本书收录了他的演讲，既是对他“实用原旨主义”司法理念的辩护，也警告称美国的宪法制度正面临日益加剧的制度和文化压力。
阿利托同意接受这场罕见的电视专访，谈论这本书。我们在他的新泽西家乡和最高法院进行了数次坦诚的长谈，历时数小时，让我们得以深入了解这位美国法律界最重要却也常被误解的人物。
今年早些时候考虑过退休，但表示“我认为我仍能做出贡献”
担任大法官二十年后，阿利托说他今年早些时候考虑过退休。现年76岁的他表示：“像我这个年纪的人，每个任期都应该考虑这个问题。”
一些保守派人士曾敦促他在共和党控制参议院的时候退休，这样特朗普总统就能提名他的继任者。但阿利托表示，这并非他做出决定的因素。
“政治局势和任何总统可能会如何处理继任者人选的问题都太难预测了，”他说。
坐在最高法院一间正式的会议室里，墙上挂着镀金框的前首席大法官肖像画，我问他在决定留任时，是否会思考自己在法院中的角色和影响力。
“我认为我仍能做出贡献，”他说，“放弃这个我认为对宪法和国家有益的工作机会很难，只要我还能胜任，就会继续做下去。”
阿利托拒绝思考自己的遗产，称任何大法官都不应考虑此事。但当被追问时，他详细阐述了自己加入最高法院以来的一系列连贯的工作成果。
“我们捍卫了岌岌可危的言论自由，我们在保护宗教自由方面做了很多工作，”他说道，并举了他所说的大学和学院里“令人担忧的景象”作为例子。
“我们维护了法律应平等适用于所有人，无论种族或族裔背景的原则，”他继续说道，“我们努力恢复宪法规定的政府原有结构——但这是一项 ongoing 工程。”
他的批评者并不这么看待这些判决，称这些判决赋予了腐败总统权力，损害了国家利益，尤其是女性和少数群体。但无可争议的是，阿利托对最高法院判决的贡献远不止于此。
阿利托是最高法院宗教自由司法判例的主要设计者，为人们自由践行宗教信仰提供了更有力的保护。在他的书中，他写道宗教自由是人类尊严的一部分，并警告称一种“新的道德准则”正将持有传统婚姻和生物性别观念的人贴上偏执狂的标签。
在投票权问题上，阿利托多年来的意见为他在上一届任期内作出的“路易斯安那州诉卡莱斯案”的多数意见奠定了基础。该案判决称该州2024年国会选区地图新增第二个非裔占多数选区的做法违宪。这一具有里程碑意义的裁决限制了各州在绘制立法选区以选举更多少数族裔候选人时，基于种族将选民集中在一起的行为。
多布斯判决草案泄露事件让他“震惊”
但最能定义阿利托的判决当属多布斯案，这份5:4的判决认为宪法并未保护女性堕胎权，意味着各州可以禁止或限制堕胎。自2022年6月该判决公布以来，已有13个州实施了全面堕胎禁令。
在法院公布判决数月前，阿利托的判决草案副本被泄露给了《政治报》。阿利托称这是史无前例的泄密事件，对法院以及大法官们的互动方式产生了持久影响。
“这次泄密给法院蒙上了阴影，因为我们不知道谁该为此负责，”阿利托说，“我想我们都无法忘记这件事。”
泄密事件的余波始于2022年4月下旬，当时《政治报》通知法院，他们拿到了一份草案并打算发布。当时大法官们正在法院的私人餐厅参加常规午餐会，首席大法官告知了他们泄密事件。按照惯例，大法官们在前往法院参加口头辩论或会议时会一起共进午餐，有时一周会有几天。这是他们可以畅所欲言、不谈案件的机会。这是唯一的规则。
在一次同僚共进的午餐会上首次得知判决草案泄露，这在法院历史上尚属首次，大法官们都难以接受。阿利托说他当时“震惊了”。
“这相当令人意外，”阿利托说，“但在很短的时间内，我和多数派的其他大法官都想到，这会让我们陷入危险，让我们成为暗杀目标。”
阿利托说，安保措施立即升级。一个月后，也就是2022年6月，全世界都明白了原因。一天深夜，当布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官和他的家人在马里兰州的家中睡觉时，一名潜在的刺客带着装有枪支和弹药、一把刀和钉子冲头、胶带、扎带、撬棍以及其他盗窃工具（包括用来消除脚步声的特制鞋子）的袋子靠近了他们家后院。
他打算在法院公布多布斯案判决前杀死大法官。由于该案以5:4的微弱多数通过，只要除掉一名大法官就能改变结果。这名刺客在私密聊天论坛上称，他的目标是杀死至少三名保守派大法官，正如检察官后来所说，“单枪匹马且不可逆转地改变美国政府的整个分支”。
最后一刻，这名男子用手机和妹妹通了电话，妹妹成功劝说他放弃了计划。他随后被捕，并因企图暗杀卡瓦诺被判有罪。
“他的目标就是改变本案的判决结果。这完全可以预见，”阿利托说，“无论谁泄露了草案，都知道或有充分理由知道这会带来这样的后果。而《政治报》也知道，或者应该知道，发布这份草案会带来这样的后果。”
《政治报》解释称，发布泄露的草案是为了让公众“前所未有地了解大法官们的审议过程”，这是“显然具有重大公共利益的新闻”。
泄密者至今身份不明。《政治报》在5月初发布报道后，有一种理论认为，保守派人士泄露草案是为了稳住五票，以防多数派中的任何一名大法官动摇。阿利托对这种说法几乎难以置信。
“我们当中没人会这么做，原因我已经说过了，因为这会给我们招来杀身之祸，”阿利托说，“所幸那次（针对卡瓦诺的）袭击计划没有成功。”
阿利托因多布斯案推翻罗伊诉韦德案而失去了一些朋友 01:30
除了引发信任危机，多布斯案还改变了法院的运作方式。由于死亡威胁和抗议活动，大法官们现在出行都有安保人员陪同，他们的住所也有警卫守卫。艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官曾谈到要穿戴防弹背心。就连大法官们的家人也在家中收到过威胁。
我问阿利托关于死亡威胁的事，以及他是否曾后悔撰写多布斯案的判决。他的回答毫不犹豫。
“不，”他说。
我追问，即使考虑到个人所付出的代价？
“不，一点也不。能撰写这份判决是一种荣幸。尽管带来了这些后果，我也不后悔，”他说，“我没有预见到它会带来这些具体的后果，但我确实预料到会有强烈的反对声音。”
最高法院的判决是如何撰写的
多布斯案对任何大法官来说都是一份极具挑战性的判决。五名大法官——阿利托、克拉伦斯·托马斯、尼尔·戈萨奇、卡瓦诺和巴雷特——都认为罗伊案判决错误，应当推翻。但他们对判决草案的具体内容有着略有不同的看法。
罗伯茨首席大法官持反对意见，敦促五名大法官不要推翻罗伊案，而托马斯作为多数派中的资深大法官，将撰写判决的任务交给了阿利托。
“在开始起草之前，我深思熟虑了我们应该说什么、怎么说——结构、语气，”阿利托说，“以及我认为我的每位同事会认同什么、不希望在判决中出现什么内容。”
在法院之外，很少有人了解阿利托在法院内部的强大影响力。组建并维持多数派联盟是整个工作的核心。自由派标志性人物威廉·布伦南曾说过，最高法院大法官最重要的事情就是学会数到五，他凭借传奇般的个人说服力和战略妥协能力组建联盟。
内敛低调的阿利托有着截然不同的方式。他的影响力并非来自人格魅力，而是在于他能够精准找到多数大法官都会认同的法律理由。
这些能力让他能够达成共识，形成一份在当时情况下尽可能推动法律发展的判决意见。
“最重要的是忠于宪法。争取到五票很重要，但如果意味着牺牲重要原则，就绝不应该为了达成多数意见而妥协，”他说，“我永远不会采纳我认为错误的法律规则，也不会说我认为错误的话。但即便如此，仍有办法在不牺牲原则的前提下维系多数派联盟。”
阿利托作为务实、审慎的共识构建者的形象，与他通常被描绘的样子相去甚远。这在一定程度上可能是因为他并不总是站在多数派一方，尤其是在涉及特朗普总统的案件中，他会在异议意见中发表强有力的观点。
他推测，人们也会根据他在口头辩论时的法庭表现来做出判断。他的法律助理形容他是一枚“热寻导弹”，能够迅速高效地找出案件的弱点。作为前联邦检察官，阿利托在里根政府时期作为司法部律师曾在最高法院辩论过12起案件。
“在口头辩论中，我不是在表演。口头辩论的目的是帮助决策过程，”阿利托说，“如果律师试图引导法院走向我认为违背宪法、对我们的法律体系和国家不利的方向，那么我会质疑这位律师，而且会毫不留情。我以前也辩论过案件，我欢迎法官提出尖锐的问题。”
阿利托在法庭外的性格或许可以解释为什么他的实际影响力比公众形象所显示的要大。他将自己的内敛性格归因于父亲，但也表示自己身上也有母亲的特质。
“他高中时的绰号是‘沉默的萨姆’，人们也这么叫我，”他说，“我父亲坚信，永远不要在公众场合流露情绪。”
“我母亲的脾气要急躁得多，”他笑着说，“所以我内心有这两种倾向。”
阿利托说，他在高中时就学会了如何组织辩论和撰写大纲，而在家里，父亲会批改他所有的写作作业，磨练他的批判性思维。
塞缪尔·阿利托大法官的父母罗斯和塞缪尔·阿利托 Sr. 的家庭照片 由塞缪尔·阿利托大法官提供
“我们会坐在餐桌旁，他会逐句逐词地批改，‘你为什么选择这个词’，还会进行很多文体方面的指导，”阿利托说，“但我从中得到的最重要的东西是他的告诫：‘如果你写的东西难以理解，问题很可能在于你没有想清楚。如果你清楚自己想说什么，语言就会更清晰。’”
换句话说，阿利托非常擅长专注于核心问题，研究如何用其他大法官能够接受的方式解释法律原则。他并不总是试图一击即中。
“我有一套关于如何解释宪法的理论。我认为宪法有固定的含义，今天它的含义仍然和通过时人们所理解的一样。我不会偏离这一点，”他说，“但并非在每一个案件中都要走到只为自己写作时想要达到的程度。”
对阿利托来说，判决意见的撰写始于法院的内部会议。大法官们会在毗邻首席大法官办公室的私密镶板会议室开会，讨论近期进行了口头辩论的案件并进行初步投票。只有九名大法官在场，没有助理或法律书记员。
阿利托会认真倾听，理解其他大法官的立场，寻求“找到我认为所有人都能达成共识的立足点”。
在 circulated 判决草案后，其他大法官会提出意见。这就是法院的运作方式，通过交换备忘录和书面建议。如果大法官不能吸纳多数派中其他大法官的建议，就可能失去他们的支持。做到这一点也需要相当程度的谦逊。
“我会收到备忘录，上面写着‘如果你加上这一点，或者去掉那一点，我就会加入你们’。有时这些意见会相当详尽。我看着自己精心打磨的作品被拆解，”阿利托带着苦笑说，“这可能很残酷，因为在发送草案之前，我已经花了大量时间。但在那一刻，我不是只为自己写作，我是为整个法院写作。”
多布斯案就是一个很好的例子。托马斯表示，他认为法院应该走得更远，重新审视同性婚姻和避孕相关的案件。但其他大法官，比如卡瓦诺，反对这么做。阿利托找到了他们能够达成共识的主线。
托马斯加入了多数派，但撰写了一份单独的协同意见，阐述他更深远的观点，卡瓦诺也是如此，表达了自己更狭隘的看法。
因此，尽管存在泄密事件和五名大法官面临的个人风险，阿利托说他从未想过会失去任何一票。
“多数派中的每个人都为那份泄露给《政治报》的判决草案做出了重要贡献，”他说，“这不只是塞缪尔·阿利托一个人写的，这是一份来自法院的判决草案。”
阿利托表示，同性婚姻判决被推翻“没有现实可能性”
在整个采访过程中，阿利托对托马斯十分钦佩，称他“将被载入最高法院历史上最重要的大法官之一”。两人是法院最可靠的保守派投票者，在重塑美国法律方面是一支强大的组合。托马斯经常撰写大胆的单独意见，明确阐述他认为法律应走向何方。阿利托或许也同意这一点，但他更克制，在当下尽可能推动法律向前发展。
“我们每个人都为法院做出了不同的贡献，”阿利托说，“而他在很多方面都是在为后世写作。他对宪法各项条款的含义有着非常坚定、深思熟虑且连贯的观点。”
阿利托明确表示，多布斯案并没有动摇“奥伯格费尔诉霍奇斯案”——这项保障同性婚姻权的里程碑式判决。尽管托马斯提出了不同意见，阿利托说这个案件有所不同，因为人们已经基于该判决安排了自己的生活，而他表示，罗伊案并非如此。阿利托在多数意见中提出了这一点，并在书中强调了这一点。虽然他拒绝直接说明如果相关案件提交法院他会如何投票，但在采访中他几乎明确表示“奥伯格费尔案”已经是 settled law。
“我认为它被推翻没有现实可能性，因为随着时间的推移和国家的发展，”他说，“我知道多布斯案的判决会遭到攻击，不仅因为它对罗伊案中认定的权利的看法，还因为这意味着其他判决——比如奥伯格费尔案和避孕相关判决——也可能被推翻。但那并非现实可能性。我想明确指出这一点。”
阿利托说，尽管他在“奥伯格费尔案”中拒绝接受宪法保障同性婚姻权的观点，但根据遵循先例原则（即“维持原判”），该案已成为 settled law。
“我们在决定是否重新审视过去的判决时，会考虑一个重要因素，即该判决被依赖的程度，”他说，“显然，奥伯格费尔案之后，国家发生了巨大变化，人们在各种方面都依赖了这项判决。”
我指出，人们曾认为罗伊诉韦德案是 settled law，并据此安排了自己的生活。推翻罗伊案也会产生后果。
他说，奥伯格费尔案则不同。
“奥伯格费尔案之后，同性伴侣结婚、签订合同……这要具体得多，”他说，“而罗伊案的情况是，有人认为它影响了人们的观念，影响了女性对自己将要生活的社会的看法，这会对社会产生影响。这比我们被要求推翻奥伯格费尔案时所涉及的情况要抽象得多。”
多布斯案后的余波：道德指控和旗帜风波
无可否认，多布斯案对法院及其公众形象产生了持久影响。民主党人组织了针对该判决的政治运动。一些州修改了宪法，明确保障堕胎权。这也让多数派大法官前所未有地受到审查，为声称法院腐败、需要改革的论调奠定了基础。
作为多布斯案的主笔大法官，阿利托因2008年乘坐亿万富翁的私人飞机前往阿拉斯加旅行而面临道德质疑。阿利托表示，他当时遵守了现行的接待规则，同机的一名联邦上诉法院法官也表示，他所在法院的法律办公室告诉他，这次旅行无需根据道德规则披露。但这成为了一连串丑闻的一部分，阿利托称这些指控损害了法院的形象。
“我认为大多数人不会阅读或了解这些事件的细节，”阿利托说，“他们在新闻上看到‘针对托马斯的道德指控，针对阿利托的道德指控，又一起针对托马斯的道德指控，又一起针对阿利托的道德指控’。仅此而已。这种滴水穿石般的影响会改变公众对法院的看法。”
随后是旗帜风波。《纽约时报》报道称，阿利托弗吉尼亚州的家外曾悬挂倒转的美国国旗。后来又报道称，他们的度假屋外挂着一面“呼吁天堂”旗帜。批评人士称，这些旗帜被一些团体用来表达对1月6日推翻总统选举结果行动的支持。民主党参议员谢尔顿·怀特豪斯和理查德·德宾——两位对法院批评最激烈的人士——要求阿利托回避涉及唐纳德·特朗普的案件。
作为回应，阿利托给他们写了一封信，断然否认有任何不当行为。“我妻子喜欢挂旗帜，”他写道，“我不喜欢。”
“我妻子决定挂一面旗帜。直到我们的一名警察告知我，我才知道她做了什么，”阿利托告诉我，“我让她把旗帜取下来。她最终也照做了。但她是个很独立的人。她是普通公民，有自己的权利。”
我说，有些人很难理解为什么他没有坚持让她立即取下旗帜。
“这不符合我们的相处模式。我们共同拥有的房子，我实际上没有法律权利告诉她该怎么做，”他说，“再说我也不是我们家的主人。那不是我们的相处模式，也不是我想要的模式。”
阿利托说，他让妻子取下旗帜是因为他知道这会引发争议，尽管他说这源于妻子玛莎·安与一位“对多布斯案判决不满的敌对邻居”之间的争执。阿利托夫人性格外向，直言不讳，曾表示她悬挂倒转的旗帜是为了表达“ distress 的象征”。
阿利托说，他认为这场争议是有人试图迫使他回避2024年涉及特朗普和总统豁免权的案件的一部分。他说没有理由回避，最终他加入了罗伯茨的多数意见判决，认定总统对其官方行为享有豁免权。
“我们并非试图推动任何政治议程”
由于他对总统权力持宽泛立场，阿利托免受了特朗普总统的批评。特朗普称赞阿利托是“想要让美国再次伟大”的人之一，同时称其他经常作出不利于他的判决的大法官为“傻瓜”和“走狗”。
无论是赞扬还是批评，都让阿利托感到困扰。
“我们不属于任何政治运动，也并非试图推动任何政治议程，”他说，“我们只是在尽最大努力解释宪法，并将其适用于提交到我们面前的案件。”
我问阿利托，来自双方政治领导人的批评对法院造成了多大的损害。
“我认为这很有破坏性，可能会造成相当大的损害。总统们在对我们的判决不满时对法院发表的言论已经发生了巨大变化，”他说，“但对法院的批评——我想公正地说——拜登总统和他的政府对法院的批评非常严厉。特朗普总统也同样严厉。”
《华尔街日报》最近的一项研究显示，阿利托比任何其他大法官都更常支持特朗普总统的立场。我问他，如果唐纳德·特朗普不在白宫，他是否会以同样的方式判决这些案件。
“我绝对真诚地相信我会的。我不是在为帮助特朗普总统而判决案件，”他说，“过去我也从未为了帮助或伤害任何其他总统或政府而判决案件。”
在一些案件中，比如驳回特朗普全面关税政策的案件，以及他试图重新定义出生公民权的案件，阿利托投了反对票。他还在一些寻求立即审查的紧急申请案件中投了反对票。在这些紧急案件中，程序上他无需公开自己的投票。如果他不同意法院的判决，他只需保持沉默即可。
“实际上有人在一个社交活动上找到我，一位政界人士，本意是好的、总体上对我持同情态度的人，他说：‘你知道吗，如果你能在其中一些案件中作出不同的判决，就能改善你的公众形象，’”阿利托说，“这个人本意是好的，但这完全是错误的。那不是我们应该做的事。”
他用了一个古老的棒球比喻：裁判工作就像判好坏球。如果连续十个球都是坏球，他说，你也不能把第十一个球判成好球。
“如果球落在泥土里，或者在好球区之外，那就是坏球，”他说，“你必须这样判罚，努力做到对双方公平。”
但阿利托表示，法官和裁判一样，仍需要做出判断，两者都不是纯粹的机械活动。他将自己描述为一名“实用原旨主义者”，认为法律必须切实可行。他说，一个看起来错误或不可行的结果不应该决定判决，但应该促使法官“回头检查我们的工作”。
“我们应该重新思考：‘这真的是宪法所要求的吗？这真的是法律所要求的吗？’”他说，“最终，如果那就是它的含义，那么判决就必须如此。但我们不应该欣然接受那些看起来毫无意义的结果。”
原旨主义的批评者称，这只是一种用来获得保守派想要的结果的解释方法。我问阿利托，是否有案件是他个人不同意判决结果的。他起初回避这个问题，称大法官不应分享个人观点。但随后他举了一个例子：2018年的“墨菲诉全国橄榄球联盟案”，他的判决推翻了禁止体育赌博的联邦法律。
“我们为全国范围内的体育博彩铺平了道路。而我个人讨厌赌博。我认为体育博彩有害，对体育和社会都有害，”他说，“但那是宪法所要求的。所以我们就是这么做的。”
因自己的判决失去了朋友
阿利托说，他因自己的判决失去了一些朋友，多布斯案就是其中一个例子。这让我很惊讶，因为早在他在第三巡回法院任职时，他在堕胎问题上的立场就一直很坚定。
“也许他们没有预料到这个案件会这样，”他说，“或者他们可能认为，‘他现在积累了如此糟糕的记录，他一定是个可怕的人。’”
我问他，这是否就是如今担任大法官的一部分工作：你会失去朋友，会被抗议，会收到死亡威胁，不得不穿戴防弹背心。威胁来自各方，当法院作出不利于特朗普的判决时，自由派大法官也会收到威胁。
“这是工作的一部分，你会因为在有争议的问题上作出判决而得罪人，因为一方或另一方会因为这些判决而非常讨厌你，”他说，“人身威胁和骚扰代表了我们社会的新现象，相当令人不安。”
“我认为这是一种危险，”他说，“这对法院是一种危险。对其他公职人员也是如此。”
行政命令和紧急审理程序
自2006年阿利托加入最高法院以来，司法环境已经发生了变化。阿利托说，加剧法院压力的还有自特朗普第二任期开始以来“激增”的紧急申请案件。这些案件不属于法院常规的审议程序，后者会安排口头辩论并要求双方提交完整的辩护意见。
奥巴马总统在第一任期曾 famously 说过：“我有一支笔和一部电话”，意思是他可以签署行政命令，无需国会参与制定新法规。但特朗普政府将行政命令的使用推向了前所未有的高度，引发了下级法院的法律挑战，主要是在由更多自由派法官组成的法院。当这些法官作出不利于政府的判决时，案件会立即被上诉至上诉法院，并提出紧急干预请求。
上一届任期，法院收到的紧急申请案件数量几乎与实质性案件相当。批评者，包括下级法院法官，称大法官们在仓促审理这些案件，几乎没有或根本没有解释推理过程。
阿利托说，这类案件数量急剧增加是因为“宪法制度没有按照制宪者的意图运作”。
“这在很大程度上是因为总统们越来越沮丧，他们无法让国会通过他们的立法计划，”阿利托说，“所以他们说：‘好吧。我会尽我所能，不依靠国会的任何帮助。这让我们陷入了非常困难的境地。’”
两党都急于将对方的政策诉诸法庭，他们通常会选择他们认为会对自己有利的法院。在拜登政府期间，大多数针对总统政策的共和党挑战都在德克萨斯州的法院提起。在特朗普第二任期，大多数民主党挑战都在马萨诸塞州、华盛顿特区或旧金山的法院提起。
“一些地区法院的判决有些过火，”阿利托说，“这些案件就到了我们这里。我们不断陷入这种冲突。”
阿利托说，最高法院正试图在一些案件中提供更多的研究和解释。他们已经将一些案件安排了口头辩论，或立即进行全面审理——包括上周关于特朗普对非法移民实施第三国驱逐政策的案件。
“我们试图为双方提供更充分的机会陈述案情，让我们有更好的机会研究案件并思考案件，而不是像我们必须非常迅速地作出决定时那样，”阿利托说，“所以有时我们会安排口头辩论。有时我们会立即进行全面审查。”
“但我们能做到的程度是有限的。如果真的是紧急情况，以至于一方或另一方会在紧急问题解决之前受到伤害，说‘我们将在两个月后进行口头辩论，然后再过两个月发布完整意见’——这并不是解决问题的好办法。”
紧急案件让法院一直处于政治争议的中心，加剧了大法官们面临的其他压力——加强的安保措施和威胁等级、对泄密的恐惧，以及他们认为的虚假且不负责任的攻击，这些攻击暗示法院存在腐败和丑闻。所有这些都导致了法院内部的紧张关系，迫使大法官们更加与世隔绝。
一些人，比如托马斯大法官，曾公开谈论法院内部的动态如何变化，他们有多怀念以前的同事，以及他们记忆中的更融洽的法院氛围。现在的气氛更加紧张。大法官们在法院内共进午餐的人数有所下降。
阿利托说，大法官们“仍然合作共事”，在午餐和偶尔的晚宴上“互动愉快，交谈愉快”。但他说，外部压力已经造成了影响。
亲密朋友斯蒂芬·布雷耶“会突然闯进来讨论案件……那真是太棒了”
当我们站在他的办公室里时，他回忆起已退休的自由派大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶。与他们的公众形象形成对比的是，大法官们在意识形态对立的阵营中也有友谊，阿利托与布雷耶关系尤其亲密。布雷耶经常突然闯进他的办公室，以至于阿利托的法律助理将他比作情景喜剧《宋飞正传》里的克莱默。
尽管他们在重大案件中意见相左，但他们有着相似的方法论：两人都是实用主义者，都关心自己判决的后果。两人也都有着类似的自嘲式幽默感。
“他是个聪明人，非常博学。但他从不炫耀自己的博学，也不把自己看得太重。我很想念他。每次我们一起吃午饭，他都能让午餐时光变得愉快，”阿利托笑着说，“他会突然闯进来，讨论各种各样的事情。他会进来讨论案件，但也会进来聊他当时感兴趣的任何话题，文学、音乐或者世界上正在发生的事情。那真是太棒了。”
我联系了布雷耶询问此事。如今在哈佛法学院任教的布雷耶仍在法院拥有办公室，也经常来法院。他称阿利托是“好朋友”，并表示虽然他们在案件中并不总是达成相同的结论，但他“总是对他的想法感兴趣”。
“我们的关系很好地证明了一个简单的事实，我多年来在法院注意到的，”布雷耶说，“我们可以成为私人朋友，却不必总是在法律结果上达成一致。”
阿利托对我是否担心这种融洽相处和友谊的日子已经结束的问题不予理会，而是转而谈论布雷耶对法院的贡献。
“史蒂夫会主动和每个人交流。他非常外向、有魅力、善于交际，”阿利托说，“他的性格和我大不相同。但我或许应该多做一些他那样的事情。也许我们都能从他身上学到更多。”
阿利托指着一张欢迎晚宴的照片，这是法院的另一项传统，他将照片放在办公桌附近。当一名新大法官加入法院时，第二资深的大法官负责为其组织欢迎晚宴，菜单或娱乐活动应与新同事的背景相关。布雷耶负责为阿利托组织的欢迎晚宴。
晚宴接近尾声时，布雷耶宣布“有一位特别嘉宾”，然后打开了门。走进来的是费城费城人队的吉祥物 Philly Phanatic。照片里，这个吉祥物正抱着托马斯大法官。阿利托将这张照片放在办公桌旁的架子上，他称之为自己的“小型棒球博物馆”，里面陈列着费城人队的纪念品和个人物品，比如他成年后参加费城人队棒球营时获得的最佳防守球员银手套奖。
阿利托的办公室和他最珍视的物品
在最高法院，大法官们的办公室都反映了他们的个性。埃琳娜·卡根大法官的办公室风格更现代，就像她成长的纽约上西区常见的办公室。尼尔·戈萨奇大法官的办公室则致敬了他的西部根源。已退休的安东尼·肯尼迪大法官曾占据阿利托的办公室，他的装饰很奢华，铺着带有金星的红地毯。
阿利托的办公室没有任何虚饰。带有金星的红地毯已经被移除。阿利托的书架上摆满了多年来积累的书籍和纪念品，他说，“还有各种我妻子认为放在这里比放在家里更好的东西。”
但在办公桌旁，阿利托可以抬头看向壁炉上方，看到他称之为“最珍视的物品”的东西。那是他父亲的出生证明副本，意大利大使馆在他确认担任大法官后送给了他。
出生证明上的日期显示，有人花了两天时间步行到镇上登记阿利托父亲的出生。这本登记册上的条目不是阿利托的亲戚写的，而是由当地官员填写的。
“这对我来说非常感人，”阿利托说，“这两个步行到镇上的人都不会读写……所以官员不得不代笔。所以这对我来说是一份有意义的文件。”
塞缪尔·阿利托大法官和他的父亲塞缪尔·阿利托 Sr. 在最高法院辩论前的未注明日期的照片 由塞缪尔·阿利托大法官提供
阿利托的父亲童年时从意大利的那个小村庄来到美国，在贫困中长大。他母亲的父母也作为农民从意大利移民过来，寻求更好的生活。两人都成为了拥有高级学位的教育工作者，父亲是律师和公职人员，母亲是一位开创性的高中校长。
“他们真的相信美国梦，相信我们国家的基本价值观……《独立宣言》中表达的观点，即所有人生而平等，他们被造物主赋予了某些不可剥夺的权利，”阿利托说，“我就是在这样的环境中长大的。”
“但这不仅仅是我的成长经历，”他继续说道，“这也是我所信仰的，经过一生的教育和经历后我所信仰的。我仍然坚信这一切。”
他父亲的出生证明旁边是阿利托自己的官方最高法院肖像画，这幅画将在他去世后陈列在法院内。在肖像画中，阿利托身着黑色法袍站在法院的大法庭里，背景是走进法院的普通民众。
这是一幅引人注目的画面：出生证明与肖像放在一起，父亲的卑微出身与儿子的成就，见证了美国的经历。
“这就是美国梦，”阿利托说，“这是一代又一代美国人实现的梦想。”
周一请收看《CBS早间新闻》和《CBS晚间新闻》，观看更多专访内容。简·克劳福德是美国顶尖的最高法院专家之一。在她30年的职业生涯中，她曾采访过多位大法官，她的著作《最高法院的冲突：为掌控美国最高法院而斗争的内幕故事》曾是《纽约时报》畅销书。
The Alito Court: A rare interview with the influential Supreme Court justice
2026-10-04T15:00:06-0400 / CBS News
Walking across the gritty New Jersey ball field for the first time since he played here as a boy, Samuel Alito couldn’t help but stop to analyze the playing surface.
The pebbles were bigger back then, he said, the field more uneven. These sounded like minor details for anyone to notice, but Alito saw something more. A rougher surface, he explained, makes it harder for infielders to field ground balls.
“I played second base. And my best friend Ronnie played shortstop. He had a stronger arm, so we were the double-play combination,” Alito said, before pausing to correct himself with a laugh. “In my fantasy, we did it all the time. But maybe we did it once or twice.”
For a young Alito, baseball was his passion, and he was no fair-weather fan. His beloved Phillies were among the worst teams in the major leagues.
Longtime Phillies fan Justice Samuel Alito Photo provided by Justice Samuel Alito
“It’s a sign of bad character if you abandon your team just because they’re having a bad streak,” he said. “Some people would think I could be quite stubborn, but I’ve stuck with the Phillies through thick and thin. Hope springs eternal.”
It’s been 60 years since Alito last played on this New Jersey field or, just down the road, walked the hallways of his old high school, where he served not only as its valedictorian, but student council president, editor of the student newspaper and a key member of both the debate and track teams.
“It seems familiar,” he says as he takes it all in, “and also seems somewhat different.”
On this day outside Trenton, he’s dressed casually, in a slightly rumpled polo shirt and khakis. He goes largely unrecognized. Without his black robe, no one seems to realize Samuel Alito is one of the most influential Supreme Court justices of our time.
CBS News’ Jan Crawford sat down with Justice Alito on the bleachers of the New Jersey baseball field where he played as a boy. CBS News
Portrayal of him as “angry” or “bitter” strikes Alito as “a caricature”
The current Supreme Court is referred to as the “Roberts Court,” after Chief Justice John Roberts, and Roberts is typically the justice most often in the majority. But Alito is in many ways the Court’s conservative leader. His legal positions going back years on abortion, affirmative action, voting rights and religious liberty now are law of the land.
To critics, that makes Alito a villain who is taking away rights from women and minorities. They see him as “angry,” his decisions fueled by “grievance” or “seeking revenge for the ’60s.” Alito calls that portrait unrecognizable.
“The idea that I’m angry and that I’m bitter and that I’m trying to get revenge for something that I experienced at an earlier point in my life is a caricature,” Alito said.
He says he is applying the Constitution as its framers intended. But his impact on the Court goes well beyond his own vote.
Among the nine, Alito is especially skilled in bringing together five justices for a majority on some of the Court’s most difficult and contentious issues. That includes his 5-4 majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the issue of abortion back to the states.
That may seem a contradiction: The justice often publicly portrayed as unyielding and inflexible is, behind the scenes, the conservative who is uniquely adept at finding common ground on the most divisive issues.
It’s a skill formed on the fields and classrooms of Hamilton Township: His focus and attention to detail, his loyalty, his quiet leadership style, and his ability to survey the playing field and adjust, all to make the winning play.
Alito is almost repelled by the public spotlight, but he has written his first book, “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country.” A collection of his speeches, the book is both a defense of his “practical originalist” approach to judging and a warning that America’s constitutional system is under growing institutional and cultural strain.
Alito agreed to talk with me about it in a rare television interview. Our remarkably candid conversations, in his hometown in New Jersey and at the Supreme Court, spanned several hours and provided a substantive look at one of the most important and often mischaracterized figures in American law.
Considered retiring earlier this year, but says,”I think I can still make a contribution”
After two decades as a justice, Alito said he considered retirement earlier this year. Now 76, he said, “it’s something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term.”
Some conservatives had urged him to step down while Republicans have control of the Senate, so that President Trump could nominate his replacement. But Alito said that wasn’t a factor in the decision.
“It’s too hard to predict what the political situation will be,” he said, “and what any president might do with respect to a replacement.”
Sitting in one of the Court’s formal conference rooms, with gilded framed paintings of former chief justices hanging on the richly paneled walls, I asked him if he thought about his role and influence on the Court when he decided to stay.
“I think I can still make a contribution,” he said. “And it’s hard to give up the opportunity to do something that I think will be good for the Constitution and good for the country as long as I’m able to do it.”
Alito refused to contemplate his legacy, saying no justice should ever consider it. But when prompted, he detailed a coherent body of work since he joined the Court.
“We have stood up for freedom of speech, which is endangered. We have done a lot to protect religious liberty,” he said, pointing to what he called an “alarming picture” at colleges and universities.
“We have vindicated the principle that the laws should be applied equally to everybody, regardless of race or ethnic background,” he continued. “We have tried to restore the original structure of the government as it was set out in the Constitution — but that’s an ongoing project.”
That’s not how his critics view those decisions, which they say have empowered a corrupt president and hurt the country, especially women and minorities. What is beyond dispute is that Alito has done much more than to simply contribute to the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Alito is the principal architect of the Court’s religious liberty jurisprudence, giving greater protections for people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. In his book, he writes that religious liberty is part of human dignity, and he warns of a “new moral code” that treats people with traditional beliefs on marriage and biological sex as bigots.
On voting rights, Alito’s opinions over the years set the stage for his majority decision last term in Louisiana v. Callais, which said the state’s 2024 congressional map that added a second majority Black district was unconstitutional. That landmark ruling restricts states from grouping voters together based on race when drawing up legislative districts to elect more minority candidates.
“Stunned” by leak of Dobbs decision draft
But the opinion that will most define Alito is Dobbs, the 5-4 decision that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion, meaning states could ban or restrict it. Since the June 2022 ruling, 13 states have enacted complete bans.
Months before the Court released the decision, a copy of Alito’s draft opinion was leaked to Politico, an unprecedented breach he said has had lasting consequences for the Court and how the justices interact.
“The leak has cast a pall over the Court to a degree because we don’t know who was responsible for that,” Alito said. “It’s something that I don’t think we can get out of our minds.”
The fallout began in late April 2022, when Politico notified the Court that it had a copy of the draft and intended to publish it. The justices were gathered in the Court’s private dining room for one of their regular lunches when the chief justice told them of the leak. By tradition, the justices have lunch together when they’re in the building for arguments or conference, sometimes a few days a week. It’s a chance for them to talk about anything other than the cases. That’s the one rule.
Hearing during a collegial lunch that a draft opinion had leaked for the first time in Court history was difficult for the justices to process. Alito said he was “stunned.”
“It was quite a shock,” Alito said. “But within a relatively short period of time, the thought occurred to me, and I think to the others in the majority, that this would endanger us. And it made us targets for assassination.”
Security, Alito said, ramped up immediately. A month later, in June of 2022, the world would know why. In the middle of the night, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his family slept in their Maryland home, a would-be assassin approached their backyard with a bag containing a gun and rounds of ammunition, a knife and nail punch, duct tape, zip ties, a crowbar and other burglary tools, including special shoes to silence his footsteps.
He was intent on killing justices before the Court released its Dobbs decision. With its narrow 5-4 majority, it would only take one justice. He said on private messaging boards he aimed to kill at least three of the conservatives and, as prosecutors later put it, “single-handedly and irrevocably to alter an entire branch of the United States government.”
At the last minute, the man spoke to his sister on his cell phone, and she managed to talk him out of it. He was arrested and later convicted for the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh.
“His goal was to change the decision in the case. So that was quite predictable,” Alito said. “And whoever leaked it knew or had good reason to know that that would be the consequence of leaking it. And Politico knew, or should’ve known, that that would be the consequence of their decision to publish it.”
Politico has explained its decision to publish the leaked draft as an “unprecedented view into the justices’ deliberations” that is “plainly news of great public interest.”
The leaker remains unknown. After Politico published its piece in early May, one theory was that a conservative had leaked the draft to keep the five votes in place, in case any of the justices in the majority were wavering. Alito was almost incredulous at the suggestion.
“It’s implausible that any of us would have done that for exactly the reason I’ve mentioned, because this pinned a target on our backs,” Alito said. “And it was very fortunate that that planned attack (on Kavanaugh) was not successful.”
Alito says he lost friends over Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade 01:30
Beyond creating a sense of distrust, Dobbs also changed how the Court operates. Because of death threats and protests, justices now travel with security and have officers guarding their homes. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has talked about having a bulletproof vest. Even justices’ family members have received threats at their homes.
I asked Alito about the death threats and if he ever regretted writing Dobbs. His response was immediate.
“No,” he said.
Even, I asked, in light of the personal costs?
“No, not at all. It was a privilege to be able to write it. And I don’t regret it, despite what it led to,” he said. “I don’t think I anticipated the particulars of what it led to. I did anticipate that there would be strong opposition.”
How the Supreme Court’s opinions are written
Dobbs was an especially challenging decision for any justice to write. Five justices — Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—believed Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. But they had somewhat different views on what that opinion should look like.
With Roberts in dissent, urging the five not to overturn Roe, Thomas was the senior justice in the majority. He assigned Alito the opinion.
“I thought long and hard before I started drafting about what we should say, how it should be said — the structure, the tone,” Alito said, “and what I thought each of my colleagues would agree with and would not want to have in the opinion.”
Outside the Court, few understand Alito’s powerful role within it. Assembling and keeping together a majority is the whole ball game. Liberal icon William Brennan used to say the most important thing for a Supreme Court justice to know is how to count to five, and he was able to build coalitions with his legendary gift of personal persuasion and strategic compromise.
Alito, reserved and unassuming, has a very different approach. His influence is not through force of personality, but in his ability to thread the needle and find the rationale a majority will agree with.
Those skills allow him to forge consensus for an opinion that moves the law as far as is practicable at the time.
“The most important thing to know is to be true to the Constitution. Getting to five is important. But you should not try to get a majority opinion if that means sacrificing something that is important,” he said. “I will never adopt a legal rule that I think is wrong, or say something that I think is wrong. But without doing that, there are ways of trying to keep a majority together.”
That image of Alito as the practical, prudent consensus builder is far removed from how he’s typically portrayed. That could be, in part, because he isn’t always in the majority, especially in cases involving President Trump, and he can be forceful in dissent.
He speculates that people also make assumptions based on his demeanor on the bench during oral arguments. His law clerks describe him as a “heat-seeking missile” who can swiftly and efficiently find weaknesses in a case. A former federal prosecutor, Alito also argued 12 cases before the Court as a Justice Department attorney in the Reagan administration.
“At oral argument, I am not trying to put on a show. The purpose of oral argument is to help the decision making process,” Alito said. “If a lawyer is trying to lead the Court in a direction that I think is contrary to the Constitution and would be bad for our legal system and for the country, then I will challenge the lawyer. And I will do it robustly. I used to argue cases. And I welcomed hard questions from judges.”
Alito’s temperament off the bench may help explain why he is more effective than his public image would suggest. He attributes his reserve to his father, but says he also has aspects of his mother.
“His nickname when he was in high school was ‘Silent Sam.’ And people have called me that too,” he says. “My father believed very strongly that you should never show emotions in public.”
“My mother was much more hot-tempered,” he says with a smile. “So I feel these two tendencies inside me.”
Alito said he learned how to organize an argument and build an outline in high school, while at home, his father reviewed all of his writing assignments, sharpening his critical thinking.
Family photo of Justice Samuel Alito’s parents, Rose and Samuel Alito Sr. Provided by Justice Samuel Alito
“We would sit down at the kitchen table. And he would go over every sentence and every word, and, ‘Why did you choose this word,’ and a lot of stylistic instruction,” Alito said. “But also, the most important thing I got out of it was his admonishing me that, ‘if you have written something that is hard to understand, the problem probably is that you hadn’t thought it through. If you had a clear idea about what you wanted to say, then the language would be clearer.’”
In other words, Alito is very good at keeping his eye on the ball and studying the field to see how the doctrine can be explained in a way that other justices can sign onto. He doesn’t always try to swing for the fences.
“I have a theory about how the Constitution should be interpreted. I believe it has a fixed meaning. And it still means today what it was understood to mean when it was adopted. And I will not depart from that,” he said. “But it is not necessary in every case to go as far as one might want to go if you were just writing the opinion for yourself.”
For Alito, opinion writing starts in the Court’s private conferences. That’s when the justices meet in the intimate paneled room adjacent to the chambers of the chief justice to discuss recently argued cases and cast their initial votes. It’s just the nine of them, no assistants or law clerks.
Alito listens carefully to understand the positions of other justices, seeking “to find ground that I think everybody will be able to agree with.”
After circulating a draft opinion, the other justices weigh in. That’s how the Court operates, by an exchange of memos and written suggestions. It’s where a justice can lose votes if he or she can’t assimilate suggestions from other justices in the majority. Doing that also requires no small dose of humility.
“I will get memos saying, ‘I will join if you put this in, or you take this out.’ And sometimes those can be pretty extensive. And I see my beautiful work product being torn apart,” Alito says with a wry smile. “It can be brutal, because before I send around a draft opinion, I spend a lot of time on it. But I’m not writing in that instance just for myself. I’m writing for the Court.”
Dobbs is a good example. Thomas said he thought the Court should go even further and reexamine cases on same-sex marriage and contraception. But other justices, like Kavanaugh, were opposed to that. Alito was able to find through lines they could agree on.
Thomas joined the majority, but wrote a separate concurring opinion detailing his more far-reaching views, as did Kavanaugh, expressing his own more narrow ones.
As a result, despite the leak and personal risks to the five justices, Alito said he never thought he would lose a vote.
“Everybody in the majority had made a very significant contribution to the draft opinion that was leaked to Politico,” he said. “So it was not just something that Sam Alito wrote. It was a draft opinion from the Court.”
There’s “not a realistic prospect” same-sex marriage decision will be overruled, Alito says
Throughout our conversation it’s evident Alito greatly admires Thomas, who he says “will go down as one of the most important justices in the history of the Court.” The two are the Court’s most reliable conservative votes, and they have been a formidable pair in transforming American law. Thomas frequently writes bold solo opinions, staking out uncompromising positions on where he believes the law should go. Alito may agree, but he is more restrained, moving the law as far as it will go in the moment.
“We each contribute something different to the court,” Alito said. “And he, in many respects, is writing for the ages. So he has very strong, clearly thought out, coherent ideas about the meaning of various provisions of the Constitution.”
One thing Alito makes clear Dobbs did not do: Call into question Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark ruling guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Despite Thomas’ arguments, Alito says that case is different because people have come to rely on it to organize their lives unlike, he says, with Roe. Alito made that point in his majority decision, and he emphasizes it in his book. While he refused to directly say how he would vote if a case ever reached the Court, in our interview he all but said Obergefell is settled law.
“I did not think that there was any realistic prospect that it would be overruled because of the passage of time and the developments in the country,” he said. “I knew that the decision in Dobbs would be attacked on the grounds that this is a terrible decision not only because of what it says about the right that was identified in Roe, but also because it will mean that these other decisions — Obergefell and contraceptive decisions — are also going to be potentially overruled. And that was not a realistic prospect. And I wanted to lay that out.”
Alito said even though in Obergefell he rejected the idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, the case remains settled law under principles of stare decisis, which means “to let the decision stand.”
“One of the important factors we take into account in deciding whether we should reexamine a past decision is the degree to which there has been reliance on the decision,” he said. “Obviously a great deal had changed in the country as a result of Obergefell. There was a lot of reliance in various ways on the decision in Obergefell.”
I pointed out that people thought Roe v. Wade was settled law of the land, had organized their lives around it. Overturning Roe also would have consequences.
Obergefell, he said, was different.
“After Obergefell, people of the same sex got married and entered into contracts … it was much more concrete,” he said. “Whereas with Roe, the argument was made that it had an effect on people’s ideas, women’s ideas about the kind of society that they were going to live in, that this would have an effect on the society. It was much more abstract than what would’ve been involved had we been asked to overrule Obergefell.”
Aftermath of Dobbs: Ethics allegations and the flags
It’s undeniable that Dobbs has had a lasting impact on the Court and its public standing. Democrats organized political campaigns against it. Some states amended their constitutions to specifically protect a right to abortion. And it opened justices in the majority to scrutiny like never before, laying the foundation for claims that the Court is corrupt and in need of reform.
As the author of Dobbs, Alito faced questions about ethics as a result of accepting a trip to Alaska in 2008 on a billionaire’s private jet. Alito said he followed the hospitality rules in place at the time, and a federal appeals court judge on the same flight said his court’s legal office told him the trip did not need to be disclosed under ethics rules. But it became part of a steady drumbeat of scandal, allegations that Alito says have hurt the Court.
“I don’t think most people read and know about the details of any of these incidents,” Alito said. “They see on the news ‘ethics allegation against Thomas, ethics allegation against Alito, another ethics allegation against Thomas, another ethics allegation against Alito.’ It doesn’t go any further than that. And drip, drip, drip, this affects the way the public thinks about the Court.”
Then came the flags. The New York Times reported that an upside-down American flag had flown outside Alito’s Virginia home. Later, it reported an “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew outside their vacation home. Critics said the flags were used by some groups to show support for efforts to overturn the presidential election on Jan. 6. Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Durbin, two of the Court’s most vociferous critics, demanded Alito recuse himself from cases involving Donald Trump.
In response, Alito wrote them a letter, emphatically denying any involvement. “My wife is fond of flying flags,” he wrote. “I am not.”
“My wife decided to fly a flag. I wasn’t even aware of what she was doing until one of our police officers informed me,” Alito told me. “And I asked her to take it down. And she did eventually. But she’s a very independent person. And she’s a private citizen. And she has her rights.”
I said it was hard for some to understand why he didn’t insist she take it down immediately.
“That’s not the nature of our relationship. I don’t actually have the legal right to tell her what to do with a home that we own jointly,” he said. “Plus I am not the lord and master of our household. That’s not our relationship, and it’s not the one that I want.”
Alito said he’d asked her to take it down because he knew it would cause controversy, even though he said it resulted from a spat between his wife, Martha Ann, and a “hostile neighbor” angry about the Dobbs decision. Mrs. Alito, outgoing and not shy about speaking her mind, has said she flew the upside-down flag as a statement, “a symbol of distress.”
Alito said he believes the controversy was part of an effort to force him to recuse himself from the 2024 case involving Trump and presidential immunity. He said there was no reason to recuse himself, and ultimately joined Roberts’ majority decision that said presidents have immunity for their official acts.
“We are not attempting to further any political agenda”
Because of his expansive views on presidential authority, Alito has been spared the ire of President Trump. He’s praised Alito as one who “wants to make America great again” while calling other justices who’ve more often ruled against him “fools” and “lapdogs.”
The praise and the criticism bother Alito.
“We are not part of any political movement. And we are not attempting to further any political agenda,” he said. “We are trying to interpret the Constitution as best we can and apply it in the cases that come before us.”
I asked Alito how damaging the criticism, coming from political leaders on both sides, is for the Court.
“I think it’s damaging. I think it can be quite damaging. There’s been a great change in what presidents have said about the court when they are unhappy about our decisions,” he said. “But the criticism of the court — I want to be even-handed on this. The criticism of the Court by President Biden and justices, by President Biden and his administration, was very harsh. And President Trump has been very harsh.”
A recent study by the Wall Street Journal showed Alito has sided with President Trump more than any other justice. I asked him if he would decide those cases the same way if Donald Trump weren’t in the White House.
“I absolutely sincerely believe that I would. I’m not trying to decide cases to help President Trump,” he said. “And I have not decided cases in the past to help or hurt any other president or presidential administration.”
In some cases, like the cases rejecting Mr. Trump’s sweeping tariffs policy and his efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, Alito is casting a vote in dissent. He’s also been in dissent in a number of emergency applications seeking immediate review. In those emergency cases, procedurally Alito doesn’t need to make his vote public. He could simply remain silent if he disagreed with the Court.
“I was actually approached at a social event by a person in the world of politics, a well-meaning and generally sympathetic person who said, ‘You know, you would burnish your public image if you would just decide a few of these cases differently,’” Alito said. “This person was well-meaning, but that’s absolutely wrong. That’s not what we’re supposed to do.
He used the old baseball metaphor that judging is like being an umpire calling balls and strikes. If there are 10 balls in a row, he said, you still can’t call the 11th ball a strike.
“If the balls are in the dirt, or outside the strike zone, it’s a ball,” he said. “And that’s how you have to call it, and try to balance what you do for the two sides.”
But Alito says judges, like umpires, still have to make judgment calls, and neither can be a purely mechanical exercise. He describes himself as a “practical originalist,” who believes the law has to work. An outcome that seems wrong or unworkable shouldn’t dictate the decision, he said, but it should prompt a judge to “go back and check our work.”
“We should think again to see, ‘Is this really what the Constitution demands? Is this really what the law demands?’” he said. “In the end, if that’s what it says, then that’s what the decision has to be. But we shouldn’t happily accept results that seem to make no sense.”
Critics of originalism say it’s merely a method of interpretation to get results conservatives want. I asked Alito if there was a case where he personally disagreed with the outcome. He initially resisted the question, saying justices shouldn’t share their personal views. But then he offered an example: Murphy v. NCAA, his 2018 decision striking down a federal law banning gambling on sports.
“We paved the way for sports betting throughout the country. And I personally hate gambling. I think sports betting is bad. It’s bad for sports and bad for society,” he said. “But that’s what the Constitution required. And so that’s what we did.”
Lost friends over his decisions
Alito says he’s lost friends as a result of his decisions, mentioning Dobbs as one example. That surprised me, since he’s been consistent on the issue of abortion going back to his time on the 3rd Circuit.
“Maybe they didn’t anticipate it for that case,” he said. “Or maybe they thought, ‘He’s now amassed such a horrible record that he must be a terrible person.’”
I asked him if that’s part of the job of being a justice today. You’re going to lose friends. You’re going to get protested. You’re going to have death threats. You’re going to have to wear a bullet-proof vest. The threats come from all sides, with liberal justices on the receiving end when the Court rules against Mr. Trump.
“It’s part of the job that you’re going to displease people by making decisions on controversial matters because one side or the other is going to really dislike you because of the decisions,” he said. “The physical threats and the harassment represent something new in our society, and something that’s quite disturbing.”
“I think it’s a danger,” he said. “It’s a danger for the courts. And it’s a danger for others in public life.”
Executive orders and the emergency docket
The playing field has changed since Alito joined the Court in 2006. Adding to the strain on the Court, Alito said, are emergency applications that “have gone through the roof” since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second term. Those are cases outside the Court’s regular deliberative process, where it schedules arguments and has full briefing.
President Obama famously said in his first term, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” meaning he could sign executive orders and add new regulations independent of Congress. But the Trump administration has taken the use of executive orders to unprecedented levels, prompting legal challenges in lower courts, mainly in areas with more liberal judges. When those judges rule against the administration, it immediately goes to the appeals courts with urgent requests to intervene.
Last term, the Court had almost as many of these emergency applications as merits cases. Critics, including lower-court judges, say the justices are rushing through these cases and offering little to no explanation of their reasoning.
Alito said there has been a dramatic increase because “the constitutional system is not working the way the framers intended.”
“A lot of this is caused by the fact that presidents have become increasingly frustrated by their inability to get Congress to enact their legislative program,” Alito said. “And so they’ve said, “Okay. I’m going to do everything that I can with my own power without needing any assistance from Congress. It puts us in a very difficult situation.”
Both parties are eager to go to court to challenge an opponent’s policies, and they typically pick courts they believe will give them a friendly reception. During the Biden administration, most of the Republican challenges to presidential policies were in Texas. In President Trump’s second term, most of the Democratic challenges are in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., or San Francisco.
“The district courts in some instances have gone overboard,” Alito said. “And these cases come to us. And we have this constant clash.”
Alito said the Supreme Court was trying to provide more study and explanation in some of these cases. They have listed some for oral argument or granted full argument right away — including a case last week on President Trump’s third-country removal policy for illegal immigrants.
“We have tried to provide a fuller opportunity for the parties to make their case and to give us a better opportunity to study the cases and think about the cases than we do when we have to decide them very, very quickly. So, sometimes we can list them for oral argument. Sometimes we’ve granted full review right away,” Alito said. “But there’s a limit to how much of that we can do. And if something is really an emergency, so that one side or the other is gonna be hurt until the emergency matter is resolved, saying ‘We’re going to have our oral argument two months from now and then issue a full opinion, maybe two months later’ — that is not really a good solution to the problem.”
The emergency cases have kept the Court in the center of political controversy, adding to the other strains on the justices — the heightened security and threat levels, fear of leaks and what they see as false and irresponsible attacks on the Court implying scandal and corruption. That’s all led to tensions inside the building and driven the justices to become even more cloistered.
Some, like Justice Thomas, have spoken publicly about how the dynamics inside the Court have changed, how much they miss former colleagues and what they remember as a more collegial atmosphere inside the building. There is more tension now. Attendance at the justices’ lunches inside the Court has dropped off.
Alito said the justices “still work together cooperatively” and have “pleasant interactions, pleasant conversations” at their lunches and the occasional dinners. But he said external pressures have taken a toll.
Close friend Stephen Breyer “would pop in here to talk about cases … and it was delightful”
As we stood in his chambers, he reminisced about retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. In contrast to their public images, justices have friendships across the ideological aisle, and Alito was especially close with Breyer, who would burst into his chambers so often that Alito’s law clerks compared him to Kramer in the sitcom “Seinfeld.”
Even though they disagreed in the major cases, they have similar methodologies: both are pragmatists who care about the consequences of their decisions. Both also have a similar, self-deprecating sense of humor.
“He is a brilliant man and very erudite. But he wears his erudition lightly, and doesn’t take himself too seriously. I do miss him. He lit up lunch time, every time we had lunch,” Alito said, smiling. “And he would pop in here to talk about all kinds of things. He would pop in here to talk about cases. But he would also come in to talk about whatever he happened to be interested in at the time, literature or music or things that were going on in the world. And it was delightful.”
I reached out to Breyer to ask him about this. Now a professor at Harvard Law School, Breyer still has an office in the Court and often is in the building. He called Alito “a good friend,” and said that while they didn’t always reach the same conclusions in cases, he was “always interested in what he thinks.”
“Our relationship is a good example of a simple fact that I have noticed here at the Court over the years,” Breyer said. “We can be personal friends without always agreeing about legal results.”
Alito brushed off my question about whether he worried those days of collegiality and friendship are over. He instead kept his focus on what Breyer contributed to the Court.
“Steve reached out to everybody. He was very outgoing and charming and gregarious,” Alito said. “His personality is a lot different from mine. But I should probably do more along the lines of what he did. And probably we all can take more of a lesson from him.”
Alito pointed out a picture from his welcome dinner, another Court tradition, that he has displayed near his desk. When a new justice joins the Court, the second most junior justice is responsible for organizing a dinner in their honor, featuring menus or entertainment that’s meaningful to their new colleague. Breyer was in charge of Alito’s dinner.
Toward the end of the dinner, Breyer announced “a special guest,” and opened the door. In walked the Philly Phanatic, the mascot of the Philadelphia Phillies. In the picture, the mascot is hugging Justice Thomas. Alito has it on a shelf by his desk, what he calls his “little baseball museum” of Phillies paraphernalia and personal items, like the Silver Glove award he received as a best defensive player when he participated — as an adult — in a Phillies baseball camp.
Alito’s chambers and his prized possession
At the Court, the justices’ chambers all are a reflection of their personalities. Justice Elena Kagan’s chambers have a more modern feel, like an office you might see on the Upper West Side of New York, where she grew up. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s is a homage to his roots in the West. Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy previously occupied Alito’s office, and his decor was grandiose, featuring a red carpet with gold stars.
Alito’s office has no pretensions. The carpet with the gold stars is gone. Alito’s shelves are overflowing with books and keepsakes he’s accumulated over the years and, he said, “various items that my wife thought would be better here than at home.”
But at his desk, Alito can glance above the fireplace and see what he calls his “prized possession.” It’s the copy of his father’s birth record that the Italian Embassy gave him after his confirmation to the Court.
The date on the birth record reveals it took two days for someone to walk to the town to report that Alito’s father was born. The entry in the book was written not by one of Alito’s relatives, but by a local official.
“It’s very moving for me,” Alito said. “Neither of these two people who walked to town could read or write … so the official had to do it. So it’s (a) meaningful document for me.”
Undated photo of Justice Samuel Alito with his father, Samuel Alito Sr., before a Supreme Court argument. Povided by Justice Samuel Alito
Alito’s father came to the United States from that small village in Italy as a child and grew up in poverty. His mother’s parents also immigrated from Italy as peasants, seeking a better life. Both became educators with advanced degrees, his father a lawyer and public official and his mother, a trailblazing high school principal.
“They really did believe in the American dream, and they believed in the fundamental values that underlie our country … the view that’s expressed in the Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal and that they’re endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” Alito said. “That’s how I was raised.
“But it’s not just how I was raised,” he continued. “It’s what I believe, and what I believed after a lifetime of education and experience. I still believe in all of that.”
His father’s birth certificate is next to Alito’s own official Supreme Court portrait, a painting that will be displayed in the Court after his death. In the painting, Alito is standing in the Court’s Great Hall in his black judicial robe, and in the background are everyday people coming into the Court.
It’s a striking image, the birth certificate together with the portrait: The humble origins of the father and the achievements of the son, a testament to the American experience.
“It is the American dream,” Alito said. “And it’s been a dream that’s been realized by generation after generation.”
Watch more of the interview Monday on “CBS Mornings” and “CBS Evening News.” Jan Crawford is one of the nation’s leading experts on the Supreme Court. She has interviewed multiple justices during her 30-year career, and her book, “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court,” was a New York Times bestseller.