Samuel Alito

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2006 - Present

Years in position

19

Predecessor:Sandra Day O'Connor (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

Years in office: 1990 - 2006

Predecessor:John Gibbons (Nonpartisan)

Successor:Joseph Greenaway (Nonpartisan)

Education

Bachelor's

Princeton University, 1972

Law

Yale Law School, 1975

Personal

Birthplace

Trenton, NJ

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is an associate justice of theSupreme Court of the United States. He was nominated to theSupreme Court of the United States by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) on October 31, 2005, to fill the vacancy created by JusticeSandra Day O'Connor's assumption ofsenior status. TheU.S. Senate confirmed Alito to the Court on January 31, 2006, in a 58-42 vote, and he was sworn in hours later.^[1][2]

Alito began his legal career in 1976 clerking for JudgeLeonard Garth on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Alito served in a variety of roles as a lawyer for the federal government between 1977 and 1990, including as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general during which time he argued 12 cases before theU.S. Supreme Court. PresidentRonald Reagan (R) appointed him U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey in 1987. In 1990, PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush (R) nominated Alito to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, where he remained until his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2005.^[3][4][5]

In an interview withThe American Spectator's Matthew Walther, Alito described his judicial philosophy: "Take the Fourth Amendment. We have to decide whether something is a reasonable search or seizure. That’s really all the text of the Constitution tells us. We can look at what was understood to be reasonable at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment. But when you have to apply that to things like a GPS that nobody could have dreamed of then, I think all you have is the principle and you have to use your judgment to apply it. I think I would consider myself a practicaloriginalist."^[6]

According to Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod, "What each case demonstrates, however, is Justice Alito’s consistent commitment to conservative principles—even when that requires deviating from precedent to move the law in his desired direction."^[7]

Between the time he joined the court and the end of the 2023-2024 term, Alitoauthored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 27 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 12 times. The table below details these cases by year. Alito'snotable opinions while on theUnited States Supreme Court include:

• the 6-3 majority opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which held that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion.
• the 5-4 majority opinion inJanus v. AFSCME (2018), which held public sector unions could not require non-member employees to pay agency fees.
• his dissenting opinion inSnyder v. Phelps (2011), in which he disagreed with the majority opinion upholding the right of individuals to peacefully protest the funerals of military service members.
• the 5-4 majority opinion inMcDonald v. Chicago (2010), which held theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the ability of municipalities to pass laws and ordinances infringing on theSecond Amendment.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (2006-present)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Samuel Alito
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 92 days after nomination.
ANominated: October 31, 2005
AABA Rating:Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:Questionnaire
AHearing: January 9-13, 2006
QFRs:QFRs(Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: January 24, 2006
AConfirmed: January 31, 2006
AVote: 58-42

On October 31, 2005, Alito was the third person to be nominated by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) to the vacancy that was created whenSandra Day O'Connor announced her assumption ofsenior status on theSupreme Court of the United States. The first wasJohn Roberts, who was then nominated to beChief Justice afterWilliam Rehnquist passed away. The second was Harriet Miers, who withdrew her nomination after facing opposition. Alito was confirmed on January 31, 2006, on aSenate vote of 58-42. Shortly after the vote, Alito was sworn in by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts.^[8][9]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990-2006)

Alito was nominated by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush (R) to serve on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on February 20, 1990. He filled the vacancy created byJohn Gibbons, whose judicial service ended upon his death on January 15, 1990. Alito was unanimously confirmed by theSenate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990. Alito served on theThird Circuit Court of Appeals until his confirmation to theSupreme Court of the United States in 2006. Alito's vacancy on theThird Circuit was filled byJoseph Greenaway.^[2]

Biography

Alito was born inTrenton, New Jersey, on April 1, 1950. Alito attended Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, graduating in 1972 with a degree in political science. While at Princeton, he participated in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). In 1975, Alito received aJ.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as editor of theYale Law Journal.^{[2][4][5][9][10]}

While at Yale, Alito was the chairman and main developer of a conference that produced a report called "The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society" in 1972. To read the full report, clickhere.

Professional career

• 2006 - Present: Associate justice,Supreme Court of the United States
• 1990-2006: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• 1987-1990:United States Attorney,District of New Jersey
• 1985-1987: Deputyassistant attorney general,United States Department of Justice
• 1981-1985: Assistant to theUnited States Solicitor General,United States Department of Justice
• 1977-1981:Assistant U.S. attorney,District of New Jersey
• 1976-1977: Law clerk, Hon.Leonard Garth,United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit^[2]

Military service

Alito was drafted to serve in the Vietnam War on December 1, 1969. He deferred his service while enrolled in college. While at Princeton, he joined the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) so that he could enter active service as an officer after college. Alito was commissioned as a second lieutenant after his graduation from Princeton, but deferred his service a second time as he entered Yale Law School. After graduation from law school, he served three months of active service from September to December of 1975. Alito served in the Army Reserve from 1972 until 1980, when he was honorably discharged with the rank of captain.^[11][12]

Approach to the law

Alito has a conservative judicial philosophy.^[13]Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that he is "known for his right wing leanings that sometimes encompass libertarian ideals."^[14] In January 2019,The National Law Journal called Alito "perhaps the Supreme Court's most reliable conservative."^[15]

Martin-Quinn score

Alito's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 2.56, making him the second most conservative justice on the court at that time.Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Alito has issued since joining the Supreme Court according to the data fromCornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annualStat Pack produced by the websiteSCOTUSBlog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.^{[16][17][18][19]} Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author ofEmpirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from theEmpirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

• Click here for information on Justice Alito's opinions from 2006 to 2022.

  Opinions written by year, Samuel Alito
  	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	2016-2017	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022
  Opinions	5	6	7	6	7	7	8	8	8	7	7	7	7	6	6	6
  Concurrences	3	4	3	9	9	7	6	9	9	6	7	2	6	7	8	7
  Dissents	2	5	6	5	7	4	8	4	13	6	4	6	7	11	5	2
  Totals	10	15	16	21	23	19	22	21	30	19	18	15	20	24	19	15

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Alito had the highest agreement rate withClarence Thomas. Alito had the lowest agreement rate withElena Kagan andSonia Sotomayor.^[20] In the 2022-2023 term, Alito had the highest agreement rate withNeil Gorsuch, and the lowest agreement rate withElena Kagan.^[21]

The table below highlights Alito's agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.^[22][23]

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Alito was in the majority in 81 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than five other justices.^[20] In the 2022-2023 term, Alito was in the majority in 80 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than six other justices.^{[21][19][24][25]}
Since the 2011-2012 term, Alito has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time eight times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority on average 81 percent of the time.^[26][19][20]

Noteworthy cases

See also:Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, clickhere.

Since he joined the court through the 2023-2024 term, Alito authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 27 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 12 times. The table below details these cases by year.^[27]

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

• SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand)

  Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to includeend-result requirements (2024)

  See also:City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency

  Justice Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inCity and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, holding that challengedend-result permitting provisions exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under theClean Water Act. Alito was joined in the majority byChief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. For the majority, Alito wrote:^[28]

  “

  The EPA may itself determine what a facility should do to protect water quality, and the Agency has ample tools to obtain whatever information it needs to make that determination. If the EPA does its work, our holding should have no adverse effect on water quality.[29]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2023 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Non-citizens may not cancel removal orders in absentia lacking time and date details (2024)

  See also:Campos-Chaves v. Garland

  Alito authored a 5-4 opinion inCampos-Chaves v. Garland, holding, "Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of theirin absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii)."^[30] Alito was joined in the majority byChief Justice John Roberts, and JusticesClarence Thomas,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. Alito wrote:^[30]

  “	Today’s decision does not mean that the Government is free of its obligation to provide an NTA. That document has an important place within the statutory scheme because it contains information that aliens may need to present their case, including the conduct for which they are charged and the provisions of law they allegedly violated. See§§1229(a)(1)(A)–(E). Although an alien who receives only paragraph (2) notice must still attend the hearing or face in absentia removal, he can raise issues regarding incomplete notice at that time. That gives the immigration judge a chance to reschedule the hearing to cure any prejudice from the missing information. But §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) does not allow aliens to seek rescission of removal orders in perpetuity based on arguments they could have raised in a hearing that they chose to skip.[29]	”
  —JusticeSamuel Alito

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

  See also:Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  Alito authored a 6-3 majority opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was joined in the majority by Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. Chief JusticeJohn Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturnRoe v. Wade (1973) andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). For the majority, Alito wrote:^[31]

  “	We hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCasey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[29]	”
  —Justice Alito

• SCOTUS 2019 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  
  

  Preemption and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (2020)

  See also:Kansas v. Garcia

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inKansas v. Garcia (2020), holding the Kansas statutes under which respondents Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were convicted "are not expressly preempted."^[32] Alito was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. For the majority, Alito wrote:^[32]

  “	Kansas law makes it a crime to commit “identity theft” or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents—three aliens who are not authorized to work in this country—were convicted under these provisions for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms that they submitted when they obtained employment. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that a provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts the Kansas statutes at issue insofar as they provide a basis for these prosecutions. We reject this reading of the provision in question, as well as respondents’ alternative arguments based on implied preemption. We therefore reverse.[29]	”
  —Justice Alito

  Suing federal agents in a personal capacity did not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting (2019)

  See also:Hernandez v. Mesa

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inHernandez v. Mesa (2019), holding the plaintiffs could not sue a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent for damages under theU.S. Constitution and that theBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics (1971) (Bivens) holding did not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Alito was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh.^[33]

  “	... a claim based on a cross-border shooting arises in a context that is markedly new. Unlike any previously recognizedBivens claim, a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications. In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad. Because of the distinctive characteristics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extendBivens into this new field. When evaluating whether to extendBivens, the most important question “is ‘who should decide’ whether to provide for a damages remedy, Congress or the courts?” The correct “answer most often will be Congress.” That is undoubtedly the answer here.[29]	”
  —Justice Alito

• SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  
  

  Mandatory detention and the Immigration and Naturalization Act (2019)

  See also:Nielsen v. Preap

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inNielsen v. Preap (2019) that ruled that the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act still applies to defendants even if they are not detained immediately after being released from criminal custody. Alito was joined in this decision by Chief JusticeRoberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Neil Gorsuch, andBrett Kavanaugh. Alito wrote:^[34]

  “

  In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail. If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time—according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long—the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole. Four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong. We therefore reverse the judgments below and remand for further proceedings.[29]

  ”

  Warrantless sobriety blood tests (2019)

  See also:Mitchell v. Wisconsin

  Alito authored a 5-4 plurality opinion inMitchell v. Wisconsin, ruling that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test to discern sobriety, a blood test can generally be permitted without a warrant. Alito was joined in this decision by Chief JusticeRoberts and JusticesStephen Breyer andBrett Kavanaugh. JusticeClarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Alito wrote:^[35]

  “

  When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk-driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test. And when a police officer encounters an unconscious driver, it is very likely that the driver would be taken to an emergency room and that his blood would be drawn for diagnostic purposes even if the police were not seeking BAC information. In addition, police officers most frequently come upon unconscious drivers when they report to the scene of an accident, and under those circumstances, the officers’ many responsibilities—such as attending to other injured drivers or passengers and preventing further accidents—may be incompatible with the procedures that would be required to obtain a warrant. Thus, when a driver is unconscious, the general rule is that a warrant is not needed.[29]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2017 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Ohio voter list maintenance and vote suppression claims (2018)

  See also:Husted v. Randolph Institute

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inHusted v. Randolph Institute (2018), ruling that Ohio's methods for maintaining its voter registration rolls did not violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) or the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Alito was joined in this decision by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Clarence Thomas, andNeil Gorsuch. For the majority, Alito wrote:^[36][37]

  “

  When Congress clarified the meaning of the NVRA’s Failure-to-Vote Clause in HAVA, here is what it said: '[C]onsistent with the [NVRA], . . . no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.' §21083(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added). The meaning of these words is straightforward. 'Solely' means 'alone.' And 'by reason of' is a quite formal way of saying '[b]ecause of.' Thus, a State violates the Failure-to-Vote Clause only if it removes registrants for no reason other than their failure to vote . . . Ohio’s Supplemental Process does not strike any registrant solely by reason of the failure to vote. Instead, as expressly permitted by federal law, it removes registrants only when they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a change-of-residence notice.[29]

  ”

  The power of public-sector unions to collect fees (2018)

  See also:Janus v. AFSCME

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion in the caseJanus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2018), overruling theAbood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) decision which established thatagency fees were constitutional, holding that "the State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment."^[38] Alito was joined in this decision by Chief JusticeRoberts and JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Clarence Thomas, andNeil Gorsuch. For the majority, Alito wrote:^[38][39]

  “

  Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments sinceAbood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations thatAbood has countenanced for the past 41 years.Abood is therefore overruled.[29]

  ”

  Racial gerrymander reviewed in Texas redistricting case (2018)

  See also:Abbott v. Perez

  Alito authored a 5-4 majority opinion inAbbott v. Perez (2018), holding that new representative districts adopted by theTexas State Legislature in 2013 did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act aside from one district, which was ruled to be a racial gerrymander. Alito was joined in this decision by Chief JusticeRoberts and Associate JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Clarence Thomas, andNeil Gorsuch. For the majority, Alito wrote:^[40][41]

  “

  Texas does not dispute that race was the predominant factor in the design of HD90, but it argues that this was permissible because it had 'good reasons to believe' that this was necessary to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.' ... Perhaps Texas could have made a stronger showing, but it is the State's burden to prove narrow tailoring, and it did not do so on the record before us. We hold that HD90 is an impermissible racial gerrymander. On remand, the District Court will have to consider what if any remedy is appropriate at this time.[29]

  ”

• SCOTUS 2010 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Westboro Baptist Church picketing case (2011)

  In 2011, Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter inSnyder v. Phelps (2011), a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church's frequent picketing of military funerals.Chief JusticeJohn Roberts summarized in the majority opinion, "The church’s congregation believes that God hates and punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in America’s military. The church frequently communicates its views by picketing, often at military funerals."^[42] The church picketed Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's military funeral. Afterward, Snyder's family sued the church and founder Fred Phelps for defamation, invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court's majorityaffirmed theFourth Circuit's ruling in favor of Westboro Baptist Church allowing them to picket a funeral so long as it fell within the defined rules of a legal protest. Justice Alito dissented from the majority, writing:^[42]

  “

  Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.[29]

  ”

  
  He wrote that the Westboro Baptist Church publicized the funeral, depriving Snyder of his basic right to bury his son in peace. He concluded that the Westboro Baptist Church picketers acted to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress, emphasizing the manner in which the church specifically verbally addressed the Snyder family and not broader topics. Alito said that the church had the right to make its positions known in any form of communication, but:^[42]

  “

  It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate. ... Because I cannot agree either with the holding of this Court or the other grounds on which the Court of Appeals relied, I would reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings.[29]

  ”

  
  

• SCOTUS 2009 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Second Amendment ruling inHeller extended to states (2010)

  In 2008, theU.S. Supreme Court held inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller that the District's handgun ban violated theSecond Amendment. Local laws inWashington, D.C., however, were subject to the authority of the federal government, which left open the question of whether the Second Amendment applied to state governments. Pursuant to the court's opinion inHeller, lawsuits were filed against similar handgun bans inChicago andOak Park, Illinois in the caseMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). The question for the Court was whether the 14th Amendment made the Second Amendment binding on state governments as well. Writing for a five-justice majority, JusticeSamuel Alito adopted theHeller rationale in holding that the right to self-defense under the Second Amendment was a fundamental right under the Constitution and was entitled to protection against encroachment by state governments:^[43]

  “	InHeller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations ofstare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. SeeDuncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized inHeller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.[29]	”
  —JusticeSamuel Alito

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opinions

• Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opinions (Click to expand)
  
  

  Majority opinion inSaxe ruling that anti-harassment policy impeded free speech (2001)

  In 2001, Samuel Alito wrote the unanimous opinion for the three-judge panel inSaxe v. State College Area School District (2001), a case that involved a group of students who argued that the school district's anti-harassment policy— "any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual" because of "race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics."—impeded their free speech to voice their view that homosexuality is a sin.^[44] In the opinion, Alito wrote:^[44]

  “	SCASD might argue that the "hostile environment" prohibition is required to maintain an orderly and non-disruptive educational environment. However, asTinker made clear, the "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance" is not enough to justify a restriction on student speech. Although SCASD correctly asserts that it has a compelling interest in promoting an educational environment that is safe and conducive to learning, it fails to provide any particularized reason as to why it anticipates substantial disruption fr om the broad swath of student speech prohibited under the Policy. The Policy, then, appears to cover substantially more speech than could be prohibited underTinker's substantial disruption test. Accordingly, we hold that the Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad.[29]	”
  —JudgeSamuel Alito

  Dissenting opinion inPlanned Parenthood v. Casey regarding spousal notification requirement for abortion patients (1991)

  Samuel Alito was part of a three-judge panel that heardPlanned Parenthood v. Casey (1991), an appeal of amendments to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982. The law required patients seeking abortions to hear about the detriments of abortions, inform their husbands about the abortion, required minors to notify parents and receive consent for an abortion, wait 24 hours before having an abortion procedure, and imposed reporting mandates on facilities that provided abortions. The majority of the panel ruled that the law did not pose an undue burden, barring the spousal notification. The majority ruled that contacting the possible father posed an unconstitutional burden on the woman. Judge Alito dissented on the spousal notification, stating the plaintiffs offered no substantial evidence that women seeking an abortion would be forced to provide proof of notification outside of a verbal affirmation:^[45][46]

  “	I concur in the court's judgment except insofar as it holds that 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 3209 (Supp.1991) (spousal notice) is unconstitutional. I also join all of the court's opinion except for the portions concerning Section 3209 and those interpreting Justice O'Connor's opinion inHodgson v. Minnesota (1990), to mean that the two-parent notification requirement without judicial bypass imposed an "undue burden" and was thus required to satisfy strict scrutiny. ... Section 3209 does not create an "absolute obstacle" or give a husband "veto power." Rather, this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions. ... The Court's opinions also seem to establish that a husband who is willing to participate in raising a child has a fundamental interest in the child's welfare. ... It follows that a husband has a "legitimate" interest in the welfare of a fetus he has conceived with his wife.[29]	”
  —JudgeSamuel Alito

  
  TheSupreme Court of the United Statesaffirmed theThird Circuit's majority opinion in part, ruling that the spousal notification was unconstitutional. The court stated that even if the law only affects one percent of women seeking an abortion, that the father's interest in the fetus does not trump the liberties afforded to the woman.^[47]

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronymSCOTUS.^[48]

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: theChief Justice of the United States and eightAssociate Justices. The justices are nominated by thepresident and confirmed with the"advice and consent" of theUnited States Senate perArticle II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.^[49]

The Supreme Court is the only court established by theUnited States Constitution (inArticle III); all other federal courts are created byCongress.

The Supreme Court meets inWashington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[49]

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Third Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 14
Judges: 14
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Michael Chagares
Active judges:Stephanos Bibas,Emil Bove,Michael Chagares,Cindy Chung,Arianna Freeman,Thomas Hardiman,Cheryl Ann Krause,Jennifer Mascott,Paul Matey,Tamika Montgomery-Reeves,Peter Phipps,David Porter,Luis Felipe Restrepo,Patty Shwartz Senior judges: Thomas Ambro,Robert Cowen,D. Michael Fisher,Julio Fuentes,Theodore McKee,Richard Nygaard,Marjorie Rendell,Jane Roth,Anthony Scirica,David Brooks Smith,Walter Stapleton

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

Appeals are heard in the James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania. It shares a courthouse with theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

One judge of the Third Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States.Samuel Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006 byGeorge W. Bush (R).

The Third Circuit hasappellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by theThird Circuit Court of Appeals are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States. JusticeSamuel Alito is thecircuit justice for the Third Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has appellatejurisdiction over the United States district court in the following federal judicial districts:

• District of Delaware
• District of New Jersey
• Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Western District of Pennsylvania

It also has appellate jurisdiction over theUnited States District Court for the U.S. Virgin Islands which, in spite of the name, is aterritorial court and belongs to no federal judicial district.

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts

External links

• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Supreme Court Biography
• Biography from theFederal Judicial Center
• Profile fromOyez
• Profile from the American Bar Association
• Profile from theSupreme Court Historical Society
• Faculty profile from Duke University
• Opinions by Samuel Alito

Footnotes

v • e Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice:Roberts Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer •Kennedy •Souter
Former chief justices	Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

v • e Federal judges who have served theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Active judges	Chief Judge: Michael Chagares  •  Patty Shwartz  •  Felipe Restrepo  •  Thomas Hardiman  •  Cheryl Ann Krause  •  Tamika Montgomery-Reeves  •  Stephanos Bibas  •  Peter Phipps  •  Paul Matey  •  David Porter (Third Circuit)  •  Arianna Freeman  •  Cindy Chung  •  Emil Bove  •  Jennifer Mascott
Senior judges	Anthony Scirica  •  Walter Stapleton (federal judge)  •  Robert Cowen  •  Jane Roth  •  Richard Nygaard  •  Theodore McKee  •  Marjorie Rendell  •  Thomas Ambro  •  Julio Fuentes  •  Brooks Smith  •  D. Michael Fisher  •
Former judges	Samuel Alito  •  Joseph Greenaway  •  Thomas Vanaskie  •  Marcus Wilson Acheson  •  Joseph Weis (Third Circuit)  •  Morton Greenberg  •  Ruggero Aldisert  •  Dolores Sloviter  •  Theodore McKee  •  Maryanne Trump Barry  •  Kent Jordan  •  Joseph Buffington  •  George Mifflin Dallas  •  Timothy Lewis (Pennsylvania)  •  Lee Sarokin  •  James Hunter  •  James Rosen  •  Michael Chertoff  •  Robert Wodrow Archbald  •  George Gray (Third Circuit)  •  John Bayard McPherson  •  William Mershon Lanning  •  Joseph Whitaker Thompson  •  John Warren Davis (Third Circuit)  •  Thomas Griffith Haight  •  Victor Baynard Woolley  •  William Clark (New Jersey)  •  Harry Kalodner  •  Phillip Forman  •  Albert Maris  •  John Biggs  •  Francis Biddle  •  William Francis Smith  •  Edward Becker  •  Abraham Freedman  •  James Ganey  •  Francis Van Dusen  •  Aloyisus Higginbotham  •  Carol Mansmann  •  Herbert Goodrich  •  Arlin Adams  •  John Gibbons (Third Circuit)  •  William Hastie  •  William Hutchinson  •  Charles Alvin Jones  •  Gerald McLaughlin  •  John O'Connell  •  Max Rosenn  •  Collins Seitz  •  David Stahl (Third Circuit)  •  Austin Staley  •
Former Chief judges	Anthony Scirica  •  Ruggero Aldisert  •  Dolores Sloviter  •  Theodore McKee  •  Brooks Smith  •  Harry Kalodner  •  John Biggs  •  Edward Becker  •  Aloyisus Higginbotham  •  John Gibbons (Third Circuit)  •  William Hastie  •  Collins Seitz  •  Austin Staley  •

v • e Federal judges nominated byGeorge W. Bush
2001	Armijo •Bates •Beistline •Blackburn •Bowdre •Bunning •Bury •Caldwell •Camp •Cassell •Cebull •Clement •Clifton •Crane •Eagan •Engelhardt •Friot •Gibbons •Granade •Gregory •Gritzner •Haddon •Hartz •Heaton •Hicks •Howard •Johnson •Jorgenson •Krieger •Land •Leon •Mahan •Martinez •Martone •McConnell •Melloy •Mills •O'Brien •Parker •Payne •Prost •Reeves •Riley •Robinson •Rogers •Royal •Shedd •B. Smith •L. Smith •Walton •Wooten •Zainey
2002	Africk •Anderson •Autrey •Baylson •Cercone •Chesler •Clark •Collyer •Conner •Conti •Corrigan •Davis •Davis •Dorr •England •Ericksen •Fuller •Gardner •Godbey •Griesbach •Hanen •Hovland •Hudson •Jones •Jordan •Kinkeade •Klausner •Kugler •Leighton •Linares •Moses •Marra •Martinez •Martini •Mays •McVerry •Phillips •Raggi •Reade •Rose •Rufe •Savage •Schwab •Smith •St. Eve •Walter •White •Wolfson
2003	Adams •Altonaga •Bea •Benitez •Bennett •Boyle •Brack •Breen •Browning •Burns •Bybee •Callahan •Campbell •Cardone •Carney •Castel •Chertoff •Cohn •Colloton •Conrad •Coogler •Cook •Cooke •Crone •Der-Yeghiayan •Drell •Duffey •Duncan •Erickson •Feuerstein •Figa •Filip •Fischer •Fisher •Flanagan •Floyd •Frost •Gibson •Greer •Gruender •Guirola •Hall •Hardiman •Hayes •Herrera •Hicks •Holmes •Holwell •Hopkins •Houston •Irizarry •Jones •Junell •Karas •Kravitz •Martinez •McKnight •Minaldi •Montalvo •Mosman •Otero •Pickering •Prado •Pratter •Proctor •Quarles •Robart •Roberts •Robinson •Rodgers •Rodriguez •Sabraw •Sanchez •Saylor •Selna •Sharpe •Simon •Springmann •Stanceu •Steele •Stengel •Suko •Sutton •Sykes •Titus •Townes •Tymkovich •Van Antwerpen •Varlan •Wake •Wesley •White •Woodcock • Yeakel
2004	Alvarez •Benton •Boyko •Covington •Diamond •Harwell •Kelley •Schiavelli •Schneider •Starrett •Watson
2005	Alito •Barrett •Batten •Bianco •Brown •Burgess •Conrad •Cox •Crotty •Delgado-Colon •Dever •DuBose •Griffin •Griffith •Johnston •Kendall •Larson •Ludington •Mattice •McKeague •Neilson •Owen •Pryor •Roberts •Sandoval •Schiltz •Seabright •Smoak •Van Tatenhove •Vitaliano •Watkins •Zouhary
2006	Besosa •Bumb •Chagares •Cogan •Gelpi •Golden •Gordon •Gorsuch •Guilford •Hillman •Holmes •Ikuta •D. Jordan •K. Jordan •Kavanaugh •Miller •Moore •Shepherd •Sheridan •Smith •Whitney •Wigenton
2007	Anderson •Aycock •Bailey •Bryant •Davis •DeGiusti •Dow •Elrod •Fairbank •Fischer •Frizzell •Gutierrez •Hall •Hardiman •Haynes •Howard •Jarvey •Jones •Jonker •Kapala •Kays •Laplante •Limbaugh •Lioi •Livingston •Maloney •Mauskopf •Mendez •Miller •Neff •O'Connor •O'Grady •O'Neill •Osteen •Ozerden •Reidinger •Sammartino •Schroeder •Settle •Smith •Snow •Southwick •Suddaby •Sullivan •Thapar •Tinder •Van Bokkelen •Wood •Wright •Wu
2008	Agee •Anello •Arguello •Brimmer •Gardephe •Goldberg •Jones •Kethledge •Lawrence •Matsumoto •Melgren •Murphy •Scriven •Seibel •Slomsky •Trenga •Waddoups •White

v • e Federal judges nominated byGeorge H.W. Bush
1989	Barksdale •Bonner •Buckwalter •Cyr •Fernandez •Garbis •Harmon •Lee •Lindberg •Lodge •Nelson •Nottingham •Plager •Rosen •Rymer •Smith •Spatt •Thomas •VanBebber •J. Walker •V. Walker •Wiener •Wright
1990	Alito •Amon •Birch •Boudin •Cleland •Clevenger •Dubina •Hamilton •Henderson •Hood •Hornby •Jones •Kent •Levi •Loken •Lourie •Martin •McBryde •McClure •McKenna •McLaughlin •McNamee •Moreno •Mullen •Nelson •Nickerson •Niemeyer •Norton •Parker •Pickering •Rader •Rainey •Randolph •Shanstrom •Shedd •Shubb •Singleton •Skretny •Souter •Sparr •Stahl •Stamp •Suhrheinrich •Taylor •Vollmer •Ware •Wilson
1991	Albritton •Andersen •Armstrong •Arnold •Bartle •Bassler •Batchelder •Beckwith •Belot •Benson •Blackburn •Bramlette •Brody •Brody •Burrell •Carnes •Caulfield •Cauthron •Clement •Collier •Conway •Cooper •Dalzell •DeMent •DeMoss •Doherty •Echols •Edmunds •Faber •Freeh •Gaitan •Garza •Graham •Haik •Hamilton •Hansen •Hendren •Herlong •Highsmith •Hogan •Huff •Hurley •Irenas •Johnson •Joyner •Kelly •Kleinfeld •Legg •Leonard •Lewis •Longstaff •Lungstrum •Luttig •Matia •McCalla •McDade •McKeague •McKelvie •Means •Merryday •Moore •Morgan •Nielsen •Nimmons •Osteen Sr. •Padova •Payne •Reinhard •Robinson •Robreno •Roll •Roth •Schlesinger •Scullin •Siler •Solis •Sotomayor •Sparks •Stohr •Thomas •Traxler •Trimble •Ungaro •Van Sickle •Wanger •Werlein •Whyte • Yohn
1992	Baird •Barbadoro •Black •Boudin •Carnes •Covello •DiClerico •Gilbert •Gonzalez •Gorton •Hansen •Heyburn •Jackson •Jacobs •Keeley •Kendall •Kopf •Kyle •Lewis •McAuliffe •McLaughlin •Melloy •Preska •Quist •Randa •Rosenthal •Rovner •Schall •Sedwick •Simandle •Stahl •Vratil •Williams