Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is rejecting calls to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election or the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The conservative justice is facing calls to recuse from such cases after reports surfaced of flags being flown outside his homes that were perceived as signaling a connection to the “Stop the Steal” movement.
However, in a three page later, Alito said his wife was behind both incidents.
The justice noted he and his wife own their Virginia home jointly and “she therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit.”
Additionally, he insisted the American flag was flown upside-down after his wife was engaged in a “very nasty neighborhood dispute” involving a house that “displayed a sign attacking her personally,” and another neighbor who used “berated her” with the “vilest epithet that can be addressed to a woman.”
“My wife is a private citizen, and she possesses the same First Amendment rights as every other American,” Alito noted.
Still, he said he asked his wife to take the flag down, but “for several days, she refused.”
The upside-down flag was used by people connected with the “Stop The Steal” effort, but it has also long been used to signal distress.
The Hill notes, “The Supreme Court’s ethics code says justices should not make political statements, in order to preserve their impartiality on matters that arrive before the court.”
Alito also addressed an incident when an “An Appeal to Heaven” flag was flown outside his vacation home. He stated his wife “may have mentioned it dates back to the American Revolution, and I assumed she was flying it to express a religious and patriotic message.”
He also denied he had any knowledge it was also used by people who were part of the “Stop the Steal Movement.”
“My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years,” Alito wrote.
Finally, he said, “A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal. I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.”
