Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has drawn considerable attention after a photograph emerged showing an upside-down American flag outside his residence.
The flag, a symbol traditionally reflecting national distress, was reportedly displayed by Justice Alito’s wife following an extended conflict with neighbors, marked by offensive language and crude yard signs. In a statement to the New York Times, Justice Alito clarified that he had no role in hoisting the flag and emphasized that it was briefly raised by Mrs. Alito in reaction to the neighbors’ disrespectful behavior.
While the use of an upside-down flag has been linked by some to the “Stop the Steal” movement led by former President Donald Trump to challenge the 2020 election results, it is worth noting that the flag was merely a signal of distress due to personally insulting actions by neighbors, and not a specific political statement.
Photographs taken by neighbors showed the upside-down flag at Alito’s home in Alexandria, Virginia, beginning January 17, 2021, and it reportedly remained for several days. Although such an act is not illegal, critics have speculated on its ethical implications for a Supreme Court Justice, arguing that justices should remain apolitical. However, Alito’s explanation makes clear this was a personal protest against immediate hostile circumstances, not a judicial or partisan stance.
Legal scholars like Amanda Frost have mistakenly equated the flag’s display to overt political messaging, suggesting that it conflicts with judicial ethical standards which discourage partisan displays. Yet, there is ambiguity about whether these rules extend to Supreme Court justices and their families.
At the time, the Supreme Court was evaluating whether to consider a case challenging the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania. Both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas expressed interest in hearing the case through their dissenting opinions. This context has led some to call for Alito’s recusal from future election-related cases, especially those involving former President Trump, stirring debates on judicial impartiality.
Critics, such as Jeremy Fogel, have voiced concerns about the impact on public confidence in the Court. However, this line of criticism overlooks the broader principle of liberty and individual expression, even for justices and their families, especially when personal, not partisan, motives are at play.
Justice Alito’s commitment to fairness and the Constitution remains unwavering, despite attempts to question his integrity over personal responses to neighborhood conflicts. The narrative underscores a broader struggle to uphold conservative values and individual liberty against unfair criticisms and politically charged narratives.
