Supreme Court Justice Alito visits campus

 

The Federalist Society and the Tocqueville Program teamed up to sponsor a “fireside chat” with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on April 10.

Moderator William Kelley, Associate Professor of Law, asked Justice Alito about how he became a Supreme Court Justice and his experience on the bench thus far.

Alito described his early time in the legal field as US attorney as mostly a management job. Later, as an appellate judge, he found that the caseload was enormous, approximately 280 cases per year per judge.

“You really have to like plowing through documents,” Alito expounded. “You have to have a pretty good tolerance for working all the time.”

Alito articulated that on the Supreme Court, he interprets the Constitution and statutes for application to cases. When choosing cases to review, justices look for division among lower courts or crucial issues that remain unresolved.

In response to Kelley’s question about deciding how to rule on cases, Alito declared, “I think you have to have a theory. You’re lost as a judge if you don’t.”

He explained, however, that opinions have to reflect what his colleagues believe as well: “You have to write something that will get at least four other votes.”

Concurring, he went on, often means writing a concurrence instead of merely signing the majority opinion: “To endorse something with which you don’t agree is not true to yourself. If I agree with the result but don’t agree with the opinion, I have to think about if I can sign it and be true to myself … You aren’t writing to achieve a practical result. There’s a certain level of honesty.”

Alito addressed the differences between oral arguments in the Supreme Court and the appellate court. The court of appeals was more “down to business.” Alito clarified that justices ask questions to know answers and that there is no public display component. Supreme Court justices have a harder time asking questions due to time constraints. Alito claimed that, in a recent case, the justices were averaging well over a question per minute.

“You have to be semi-rude,” Alito stated. “I try to wait until lawyers adequately answer the last question, but there is a certain timing involved … I try to ask attorneys about what I see as the biggest weakness in their arguments.”

Alito also addressed how justices communicate about cases. He said they “talk after arguments, but there isn’t a lot of lobbying,” emphasizing the importance of independent deliberation. This tradition arose out of the fear that one justice with a strong personality would be able to persuade other justices to rule a certain way without considering the case for themselves.

Zachary German, a graduate student of political science, told the Rover that he was interested in the dynamic among the justices, especially the effect Justice Scalia had on Alito. He commented, “[Alito] explained that he used to delve deeply into legislative history, but that, due to Scalia’s influence, he and the rest of the Court have become much more textualist.”

Alito expounded upon the concept of amicus curiae briefs, stating that he has only heard one case without any amicus briefs, and usually there are multiple.

“Many are good and they are helpful by providing different perspectives,” he declared. “They are helpful where I don’t have a lot of personal background I can get a sense of how this issue fits into the bigger picture in a practical sense.”

Alito moved on to describe the duties of his law clerks. Typically, a law clerk will study a case and write a memo. Before arguments, all clerks talk to Alito about what he wants to explore in the case. If an opinion is assigned to Alito, one of the clerks will help write the brief, taking into account the other justices’ opinions.

“The process of writing makes you see things you didn’t see before,” Alito added.

When asked about his opinions in various cases involving free speech, Justice Alito replied, “I think I’m very strongly supportive of freedom of speech. At its core is the discussion of things very important such as political speech, philosophy, history, science … If it’s in that realm, I’m skeptical about any restrictions on that free speech.”

Justice Alito concluded by addressing the role of religious beliefs in deciding cases.

“My job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it,” Alito asserted, “I don’t have authority to impose my religious views on the rest of the country.”

“I do think people of faith learn certain values as a result of religious education and development,” Alito continued. “I don’t see this as a problem bringing this to the job as long as they stay within the role they’ve been given.”

 

Hailey Vrdolyak is a sophomore political science and Spanish major who does not use any type of social media. Therefore, contact her at hvrdolya@nd.edu.