Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is facing criticism over what one writer describes as a selective application of constitutional protections, extending empathy to some Americans while disregarding the rights of others. The opinion piece argues that his rulings reflect an ideological divide rooted in the same us-versus-them mentality that has defined President Donald Trump's era.
In a new Substack article, Jesse Wegman, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, lays out his argument in a piece titled You’re Probably Not Welcome in Samuel Alito’s America. His observations are based on words from Alito, courtesy of his new book So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country. The 320-page book features 19 speeches and written works Alito produced between 2007 and 2025.
Wegman accuses Alito of having selective empathy. In his book, Alito expresses concern about religious discrimination and violence, particularly against religious communities. But in his work, Wegman says Alito shows less compassion toward marginalized groups, most notably women and Black Americans. Wegman provides the example of Alito’s involvement in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In 2022, Alito wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the historic precedent and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion. For Wegman, this was a clear violation of women having autonomy over their bodies, and the lack of consideration for women who may suffer debilitating health issues as a result of pregnancies deemed unsafe. Furthermore, it negates women who opt to terminate pregnancies in traumatic instances like sexual assault and incest.
Wegman takes issue with Alito's role in weakening the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the justice failed to consider how the ruling could undermine Black voters' political representation, particularly in Southern states. Alito also authored the Court's majority opinion in the case. In this case, Wegman says that Alito focused on the legal arguments surrounding redistricting without addressing the potential consequences for Black voters.
Wegman notices a pattern of Alito's tendency to prioritize President Donald Trump's political and legal interests versus protecting democracy and Americans' right to vote. He references two Supreme Court cases in his argument: Trump v. United States, which questioned whether Trump could face criminal prosecution for actions he took while president; and the September 2026 voting restrictions ruling.
In the former, Wegman argues that Alito was more concerned about protecting Trump from political retaliation than addressing the actual allegations, which were serious in nature. In the latter, which involved Trump's executive order seeking to restrict mail-in voting, Wegman argues that Alito cared more about the administration losing its ability to restrict mail-in voting than about protecting Americans' access to the ballot box. Wegman says Alito aligns with Trump-era politics, which ultimately divides Americans into the haves and the have-nots.
