Last week, Justice Samuel Alito delivered a rousing keynote address to the annual convention of the Federalist Society, arguably the nation's most influential conservative legal group.
The speech was starkly different from the guarded public pronouncements that are the usual fare from members of the Supreme Court. Instead, it was a full-throated attack on policies and judicial decisions that, he contended, grant too much power to government agencies charged with protecting public health — and further threaten religious liberties already under assault.
Afterward, one could hardly be blamed for musing on the hypocrisy of Supreme Court nominees who regularly claim they have no political agenda only to pursue such an agenda once they've secured confirmation. It was only last month when the nation witnessed this charade at the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly assuring the committee that "I have no mission and no agenda. Judges don't have campaign promises."
Like the newest justice, Alito at his 2006 confirmation hearings promised his political views would be irrelevant to his work on the high court. Then on a federal appeals court, he contended there is a stark difference between being a judge and an advocate who "has the goal of achieving the result that the client wants within the bounds of professional responsibility." A judge, he said, "doesn't have an agenda, and a judge has to follow the law."
And when asked if he agreed with a series of Supreme Court rulings, or continued to subscribe to previous criticisms of other decisions, he consistently. refused to answer. He insisted he could not comment on cases or issues that might come before the court, lest he be seen as prejudging them.
Such reticence vanished before the Federalist Society. Alito unburdened himself of grievances, legal and political. And he freely talked about issues already on the Supreme Court docket. He seemed untroubled skating up to the line of ethics rules requiring judges to remain impartial, to avoid any appearance of bias and to avoid public comment on the merits of any pending matter.
About state public health measures attempting to curb the spread of the coronavirus, he observed that "the pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty" and asserted that "We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020."
Abandoning the posture he assumed at his confirmation hearings, Alito specifically criticized his own court's recent refusal to stop restrictions imposed by two states to fight Covid-19 — measures, he contended, that "blatantly discriminated against houses of worship."
Those cases reveal what he called "emerging trends in the assessment of individual rights" by the court. "It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right."
The justice proudly proclaimed his belief in the virtues of the 1993 law dubbed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even as the court is currently considering a case that could curtail its reach.
And in discussing the 2018 case of a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, the justice declared such treatment caused the couple no harm because a nearby baker provided them a "free cake." He professed that view even though a similar issue involving religious freedom and discrimination against same-sex couples is also pending in his courthouse.
Warming to another conservative legal cause celebre, Alito cited what he called the "disturbing trend" of the growing power of federal regulatory agencies. Again, he spoke while the court's docketnow has cases testing the authority of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Federal Trade Commission.
"Every year," the justice complained, "administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of authority churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarf the statutes enacted by the people's elected representatives." Echoing the Trump administration's paranoia about a "deep state" and its hostility to science, Alito decried what he called "government by executive officials."
These are hardly the words of a justice without an agenda. Indeed, they seem to be a rallying cry for the Supreme Court's newly augmented conservative majority to use its power to curtail the power of government agencies responsible for protecting public health and safety and to advance the libertarian cause.
As Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a nonprofit group that has called for stricter ethics rules for the Supreme Court, rightly noted, the speech "was more befitting a Trump rally than a legal society." It provides yet another occasion for Americans to wonder whether our judges can be trusted when they claim that they are merely neutral arbiters of the law.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.