Justice Alito Tells Democrat Senators He Will Not Recuse Himself From Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told Democrat lawmakers on Wednesday that he will not recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 presidential election after they used left-wing political attacks to demand that he do so.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts last week demanding that Alito recuse himself after The New York Times published a hit piece on Alito claiming that he flew an upside down American flag, which the report claimed was also a link to the January 6 riot.

“The two incidents you cite do not meet the conditions for recusal,” Alito wrote in a letter distributed by the Supreme Court. “The first incident cited in your letter concerns the flying of an upside-down American flag outside the house in Virginia where my wife and I reside. In considering whether this event requires recusal, an unbiased and reasonable person would take into account the following facts. As I have stated publicly, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside- down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused.”

“My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly. She therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly,” he continued. “My wife’s reasons for flying the flag are not relevant for present purposes, but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement. A house on the street displayed a sign attacking her personally, and a man who was living in the house at the time trailed her all the way down the street and berated her in my presence using foul language, including what I regard as the vilest epithet that can be addressed to a woman.”

Alito said that his wife is entitled to the same First Amendment rights as every other American and that it was her decision to fly the flag and that she has endured “numerous, loud, obscene, and personally insulting protests in front of our home that continue to this day and now threaten to escalate.”

Alito then addressed another New York Times hit piece that claimed he flew a flag — the “Appeal to Heaven” flag — at his vacation home last summer that was linked to the January 6 riot.

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag was designed by Colonel Joseph Reed, who served as the personal secretary to George Washington, and was adopted for use in 1775.

“The second incident concerns a flag bearing the legend ‘An Appeal to Heaven’ that flew in the backyard of our vacation home in the summer of 2023. I recall that my wife did fly that flag for some period of time, but I do not remember how long it flew. And what is most relevant here, I had no involvement in the decision to fly that flag,” he said. “My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years. In addition to the American flag, she has flown other patriotic flags (including a favorite flag thanking veterans), college flags, flags supporting sports teams, state and local flags, flags of nations from which the ancestors of family members came, flags of places we have visited, seasonal flags, and religious flags.”

He said that he was not familiar with the “Appeal to Heaven” flag when his wife flew it and that she had no idea it was linked to any events of January 6 when she decided to fly it.

“As I said in reference to the other flag event, my wife is an independently minded private citizen. She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so. Our vacation home was purchased with money she inherited from her parents and is titled in her name. It is a place, away from Washington, where she should be able to relax,” he concluded. “A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal. I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.”