Congressional Democrats have long had it out for the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution and when it comes to the conservative justices in particular. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who serves as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, is chief among them. tmatRaskin is going after Justice Samuel Alito by name this time, as he calls on the justice to recuse himself from Trump v. New York in deciding if the president-elect can be sentenced in his hush-money case on Friday.
"In our democracy, Americans expect their cases to be heard by impartial judges. This concept of impartiality goes back further than the Court’s own Code of Conduct and underlies even the earliest versions of the federal recusal statute," Raskin said, per Fox News' Chad Pergram. "The mere act of having a personal telephone conversation with the president-elect, while he has active interests in matters currently pending before the court, is plainly sufficient to trigger a situation ‘in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ Every federal judge and justice knows he or she must avoid situations such as this. Yet Justice Alito did not."
Top Dem on House Judiciary Cmte Raskin wants Alito to recuse himself in Trump v. New York. Raskin: In our democracy, Americans expect their cases to be heard by impartial judges. This concept of impartiality goes back further than the Court’s own Code of Conduct and underlies…
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 9, 2025
Such a reaction came after Alito and Trump reportedly spoke with one another over the phone earlier this week, with Alito explaining that it was to discuss the qualifications of a former law clerk of his.
As The Washington Post mentioned:
...
Alito, however, described the call as routine. Court experts said it is typical for justices to provide recommendations for former clerks, but direct communications between presidents and justices have grown less common in recent years.
“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito wrote in a Wednesday statement, which was first reported by ABC News. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.”
Trump didn't make such a request of the Court until Tuesday night, with Leah covering the news on Wednesday morning. Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled Trump's sentencing in the hush money case, where Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts on May 30. There are concerns not only with the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, but with Merchan and his conflicts of interest, especially when it comes to his adult daughter.
Sentencing is set to take place on January 10, just 10 days before Trump is to be inaugurated.
That same report from The Washington Post mentioned others' views on Alito. While the headline read that "Trump call to Alito sparks demands for justice to recuse from sentencing case," there wasn't quite a consensus.
Raskin and NYU Law Professor Stephen Gillers say Alito should recuse. Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former federal judge who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton said that with such communications, "appearances can be problematic," though he wouldn't say if Alito should recuse. George Mason University Law Professor Robert Luther III, who also served as White House counsel during Trump's first term, did not see an issue.
Raskin also provided an even longer statement to Politicsusa. There's a very key point that the congressman himself makes at the very end:
Yesterday, we learned that President-elect Trump spoke to Justice Alito just hours before Trump asked the Supreme Court to halt his criminal sentencing in New York. Justice Alito brushed off this startling ex parte private phone call and breach of judicial ethics by asserting that this perfectly timed conversation actually regarded his recommendation of a former clerk for an administration job. Especially when paired with his troubling past partisan ideological activity in favor of Trump, Justice Alito’s decision to have a personal phone call with President Trump—who obviously has an active and deeply personal matter before the court—makes clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics or, more likely, believes himself to be above judicial ethics altogether.
Justice Alito has made his political leanings and support for the president-elect clear, whether it be his display of flags in apparent support of the January 6th insurrectionists and the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, or his self-proclaimed ideological battle with ‘the Left.’
In our democracy, Americans expect their cases to be heard by impartial judges. This concept of impartiality goes back further than the Court’s own Code of Conduct and underlies even the earliest versions of the federal recusal statute.
The mere act of having a personal telephone conversation with the president-elect, while he has active interests in matters currently pending before the court, is plainly sufficient to trigger a situation ‘in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’
Every federal judge and justice knows he or she must avoid situations such as this. Yet Justice Alito did not.
Impartial justice under the Constitution demands that Justice Alito hold himself to the highest ethical standards and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In light of his continuing display of political bias and corresponding abuse of the public trust, Justice Alito has a duty, under the constitution and federal law, and under the Supreme Court’s own Code of Conduct, to recuse from Donald J. Trump v. New York, et al., if the matter is in fact now referred to the entire Court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the justice who will decide whether to grant Trump's stay, though she could also refer the matter to the whole Court.
Sotomayor joined all other justices in the unanimous decision of Trump v. Anderson last year, which ruled that Colorado could not have Trump removed from the ballot, as they did in December of 2023, since states could not decide eligibility.
Any predictions on whether Sotomayor will do the right thing? I don't see how she can't, considering their own decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. You'd have to make up some tortured legal reasoning. https://t.co/mWiTE6WYmQ
— Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) January 8, 2025
Raskin has been preoccupied with Trump and cases involving the now president-elect. He was quite vocal in his claims that the Constitution barred Trump from serving as president over Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which applies to insurrectionists. But, as mentioned above, the Court ruled otherwise.
Raskin has also called on conservative justices to recuse themselves in the past, namely Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. On May 29 of last year, Raskin penned a guest essay in The New York Times, "How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases." Less than a month later, he and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) joined forces to send a letter to Chief Justice Samuel Alito about ethics concerns, going after Alito and Thomas by name.