Samuel Alito, a US Supreme Court Justice, recently engaged in a phone conversation with Donald Trump, raising significant concerns about judicial ethics. The call focused on a recommendation for one of Alito's former law clerks, William Levi, for a position in Trump's incoming administration. This discussion occurred while Trump faces 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records, potentially leading to a four-year jail sentence. However, due to a previous Supreme Court ruling and Trump's ongoing presidential transition efforts, Judge Juan Merchan is expected to grant an unconditional discharge.
The timing of the conversation has raised eyebrows as Trump's legal team requested a delay in the sentencing hearing, scheduled for Friday, just ten days before his inauguration. Advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions about the ethical implications of Alito's communication with Trump, especially given the backdrop of Trump's legal challenges.
“The call was merely an excuse for Trump to speak with one of the nine people determining the fate of his hush money sentencing in the coming days and who will review many more Trump-related issues over the next four years,” stated Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court.
Alito has clarified that their discussion did not include any topics related to Trump's sentencing application or other pending matters involving the former president. Nonetheless, the presence of pro-Trump symbols at Alito's residences in Virginia and New Jersey—such as an upside-down US flag and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag—has fueled further speculation about his impartiality.
“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from president-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito explained. “I agreed to discuss this matter with president-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday [Wednesday] afternoon.”
The exchange has reignited debates over the ethical conduct of several Supreme Court justices, including Alito. The issue is compounded by the court's decision last year to grant near-absolute presidential immunity and Congress's refusal to enact enforceable ethical standards for justices.
“Typically, Trump and Alito are better at hiding their ethics issues, at least for a few months or sometimes longer. But with the supreme court green lighting near-absolute presidential immunity last year, and with Congress refusing to pass enforceable ethics for the justices, it appears there’s no reason to even try,” added Roth.