A recent turn of events involving Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has come to light, where he reassigned a high-stakes legal case to himself from a notably conservative associate who had originally been tasked with it. This move came just a handful of days after the spouse of said conservative Justice publicly expressed affinity towards the divisive ‘Stop the Steal’ movement. The details of this story were revealed in a recent news article.
At the heart of this situation is Justice Samuel Alito, one of the more conservative justices in the Supreme Court, and the case known as Fischer v. United States. This noteworthy case explores whether the federal government overstepped its boundaries when it accused individuals involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection of interrupting a federal proceeding. The initial assignment of penning the majority opinion for this case was given to Alito by Chief Justice Roberts, as reported by The New York Times.
A major twist in this series of events was the revelation on May 16th, reported by the Times, of Martha-Ann Alito, wife of Justice Alito, showing support for the ‘Stop the Steal’ mantra. Martha-Ann was reported to have hung an inverted American flag at their residence in Virginia—an act undertaken by some participants of the Jan. 6 saga— in January 2021, only a few short days following the infamous Capitol attack.
On the 20th of May, a mere four days after the Times report, a shift ensued as Roberts stepped forward to assert that he would be the one to draft the majority opinion for the Fischer v. United States case. This information was also gleaned from the Times. Such a change in authorship, without an accompanying switch in the actual stance or direction of the opinion, raises a few eyebrows and is considered irregular, according to those familiar with court proceedings.
The decision made by Roberts to add yet another case to his writing responsibilities also did not go unnoticed. The Supreme Court’s most recent term had seen Roberts author a total of seven cases, including five of the most impactful rulings. This additional responsibility seemed to add significantly to his judicial workload.
Interestingly, the court’s divided decision on the Fischer v. United States case, falling largely along ideological lines at 6-3, mandated thorough proof from the government that a defendant hindered specific sections of an official procedure before charging them. The ruling declared the statute could not be used in a general or broad manner.
The connection, if any, between Martha-Ann Alito’s demonstration of support for the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign and the decision of Roberts to remove Samuel Alito as writer of the majority opinion, remains unclear. No clarification was given by the justices to the Times when queried.
Alito continued to serve on the Fischer case, and was a part of the majority decision. In the meantime, another revelation by the Times was the display of an ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag—a symbol appropriated by some involved in the Jan. 6 uprising—at the Alitos’ beachside home in Long Beach Island, New Jersey.
In a statement to the Times, Alito proffered an explanation for the upside-down flag, stating it was raised as a result of a disagreement between his wife and a neighboring household about their display of anti-Trump signage. The flag’s specific connotations were apparently not originally known to him or his wife.
Following calls from congressional leaders in late May for his recusal from the case, Alito admitted that he had asked his wife Martha-Ann to remove the controversial flag from display. Despite this, she remained defiant for several days. Alito insisted that he was entirely unaware of the symbolism behind the inverted flag until it was pointed out to him.
Addressing Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse directly, Alito clarified that the two incidents being considered did not meet the criteria for his recusal, as stated in his formal response. He firmly denied any involvement in or foreknowledge of the flag’s display.
Asserting his hands-off role in the controversy, Justice Alito remarked, ‘To clarify, I had absolutely zero involvement in the flag incident. The upside-down flag wasn’t even on my radar until someone brought it to my attention.’ Despite all the resultant upheaval, Alito’s position remained secure and his role on the case unchanged.