This is one outlet's own report from Newsweek — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
Justice Alito Says He Won't Decide Cases Based on Correlation With Trump
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says he will continue deciding cases based on his interpretation of the law rather than any perceived alignment with President Donald Trump or public expectations about the High Court's impartiality. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal , Alito rejected the notion that he should alter his judicial approach simply to avoid appearing politically aligned with the president or not.
"I vote in every case the way I think the case should be decided," Alito said. "If that means a high correlation with what Trump wants, fine. If it means zero correlation with what Trump wants, fine as well." He added that he believes it would be "absolutely wrong" to intentionally rule differently in some cases merely so observers would conclude he is objective. "There have been people who've recommended to me that I do that," Alito said. "I'm not going to do that. I'm going to decide them all the way that I think they should be decided. I explain why I've done it. People can agree, people can disagree."
Alito's comments come as renewed attention has focused on the Supreme Court and speculation surrounding its future. Earlier this summer, NPR incorrectly reported that Alito was considering retirement before issuing a correction after the story drew widespread attention. The inaccurate report fueled days of discussion over whether Trump could have an opportunity to nominate a new justice should Alito or another leave the bench during the Republican administration.
In his comments to the Journal , Alito said, “Obviously I’m here for another term.” He was asked if calls for him to step down bother him, and he replied, "It’s not pleasant, in the sense that it’s a reminder of mortality,” he said. “It’s like, what are those vultures doing up there? They are flying around. But it goes with life tenure.”
Prominent constitutional law and criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsweek via email on Friday that "I agree with Alito’s answer, and I hope he stays on the Court."
Trump told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo earlier this year that Alito is a "great justice" and should the occasion arise, he'd be prepared to nominate someone else. "In theory, it's two or three—if you just read statistics—it could be two, could be three, could be one," the president said. "I don't know. I'm prepared to do it. But when you mention Alito, he is a great justice," he told Bartiromo.
Against that backdrop, Alito's remarks sought to push back on criticism that outside political perceptions should influence his judicial decision-making, arguing that each case should instead be resolved based on what he believes the law requires.
Recent polling has found the High Court's approval rating remains below historical highs , while surveys also show individual justices continue to receive sharply divided favorability ratings along partisan lines.
A Marquette Law School Poll found that 47 percent of adults approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, and 53 percent disapprove. The survey shows that 74 percent of Republicans approve, 35 percent of independents and 22 percent of Democrats.
In a February 2025 survey from the pollster, 84 percent of Republicans approved of the court, revealing a 10 percent drop.
The survey found that opinions of the court also varied significantly by party, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to believe the justices routinely issue decisions favoring Trump.
In the interview released Friday, Alito defended what he described as a "practical originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation, arguing that judges should remain faithful to the Constitution's original public meaning while avoiding overly broad interpretations of constitutional principles that extend beyond what those who adopted the provisions would have understood.
“You can take an important principle that is in the Constitution, like equal treatment,” Alito said, “and if you view it at a very high level of generality, you can say that the Constitution requires equal treatment in a context that never occurred to, or never could have occurred to, those who adopted the provision.”
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Edward T. Cummins .
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.
