Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attends in Rome, Italy, September 20, 2025. REUTERS/Vincenzo Livieri
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is sticking around for at least another term, and as one noted legal scholar wrote for The Hill, he is doing so because of the "unfinished business" that the court's upcoming cases present to him.
Concerns about Alito, as well as Clarence Thomas, retiring have been growing since Donald Trump returned to the White House, with observers fretting about the possibility that he will get to appoint even more conservative justices to the court. The issue got even more attention earlier this year when NPR accidentally published a placeholder article about Alito retiring after the end of the court's most recent term.
On Friday, Alito, 76, shot down rumors of his impending retirement in a new interview with the Wall Street Journal.
"Obviously I’m here for another term," the justice said.
On Saturday, legal scholar and analyst Jonathan Turley published a new piece for The Hill, digging into Alito's decision and the motivations behind it. Turley has been described by sources like AllSides as right-leaning in his commentary, but has also more often been described as more of a libertarian than an outright conservative.
In the piece, Turley explained that the cases coming up for the Supreme Court present an opportunity for Alito to continue to revamp U.S. law.
"Looking at the docket for the coming term, it is easy to see why [Alito is not retiring yet]," Turley wrote. "Even after overturning Roe v. Wade and other historic opinions, Alito still has unfinished business. An example can be found in two cases involving bans on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 that are now awaiting argument in the October term... In what is known as the court’s 'clean-up conference,' the justices granted review in Illinois and Connecticut cases challenging bans on semiautomatic rifles."
The two cases in question are Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Viramontes concerns the longstanding law in Cook County banning the sale and possession of assault weapons, including the AR-15. Grant, meanwhile, concerns a legal challenge to Connecticut's assault weapon ban, which was put in place after the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
"These gun bans are not the only cases involving politically popular, legally dubious legislation," Turley added. "The first case to be argued will be Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County, a challenge to state laws imposing damages on fossil fuel companies for climate change. With a docket like that, one can see why Alito is not going anywhere."