Samuel Alito and The Billionaire

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: “Samuel Alito and The Billionaire”

Podcast: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Date: June 21, 2023
Episode Theme: Supreme Court integrity, judicial ethics, and the intersection of power, money, and influence—focusing on Justice Samuel Alito’s undisclosed ties to billionaire Paul Singer and broader implications for public trust in the Court.

---

Overview of the Episode

Host Dahlia Lithwick, joined by Mark Joseph Stern, unpacks a week of high-stakes Supreme Court decisions, with an emergency focus on explosive reporting about Justice Samuel Alito’s relationship with billionaire Paul Singer. The episode explores the implications of undisclosed gifts and potential conflicts of interest, judicial recusals (or lack thereof), and how these dynamics erode confidence in the Court. Alongside this, they break down major Supreme Court rulings from the week and reflect on the Court's direction and internal culture.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Breaking News: Alito and the Billionaire [03:28]

• Background: ProPublica’s reporting revealed Justice Samuel Alito accepted luxury travel from billionaire Paul Singer and participated in cases involving Singer’s hedge fund, without recusal or disclosure.
• Lithwick and Stern’s Take:
  • Stern: “Alito did not recuse himself from a case involving Paul Singer's hedge fund. Billions of dollars tied up in this case.” [03:28]
  • The discussion highlights the unprecedented nature of such direct, traceable conflicts of interest and the lack of meaningful consequences for justices.
  • Implication: Raises concerns over the impartiality of the highest court and questions about what judicial ethics, if any, still constrain the justices.

2. Broad Concerns About the Supreme Court’s Ethics [03:28–04:03]

• The episode contextualizes Alito’s actions within a pattern of questionable conduct by multiple justices.
• “Who gets their issues in front of the court and who decides how those decisions come out,” Lithwick notes, are increasingly suspect due to these relationships. [02:58–03:28]
• The hosts emphasize the gap in accountability mechanisms:
  • “There are no meaningful consequences for justices who flout these norms.” [Paraphrased Theme]

3. Impact on Public Trust and the Court’s Legitimacy

• The hosts reflect on the effect of such episodes on public confidence:
  • “It’s this idea that you can totally cut race out of VRA claims and still come up with a fair map. And what Roberts says is that gets this entirely backwards.” [01:14, Stern—related, but illustrates deeper discussion of public trust in Court reasoning]
• The conversation suggests that headlines about lavish gifts and recusals feed skepticism about fairness and law’s role in American life.

4. Weekly Supreme Court Roundup

• The episode also swiftly recaps and analyzes several major decisions:
  • Haaland v. Brackeen: Supreme Court upholds the Indian Child Welfare Act, protecting Native American tribal sovereignty.
    • Stern: “Affirms in pretty resounding rhetoric the sweeping power of Congress to step in and protect Native families and tribes from destruction.” [02:26]
  • Smith v. United States: Brief mention, relevant to Jack Smith’s choice of venue in the Trump prosecution.
  • Moore v. Harper:
    • 6–3 decision rejects the “independent state legislature theory,” undermining certain 2020 election-overturning arguments.
    • Guest: “The Independent state legislature theory was the centerpiece of the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” [03:55]
  • Affirmative Action Ruling: Supreme Court strikes down race-conscious admissions at Harvard/UNC.
    • Stern: “This is a bad one. I mean, this is a really big blow to efforts to achieve racial justice in this country.” [04:38]

5. Court Culture: “The Soft Pants Court” [02:49]

• The hosts share a lighter moment about the rhythm and work habits of the justices:
  • Stern jokes: “Yeah, because you know, they don't want to have to go all the way into work. Like who goes into the office these days, Dalia, come on, it's 2023. They're just justices. What do they even have to do there?” [02:49]
  • Lithwick quips: “We should stop calling it the Roberts Court and call it the soft pants court.” [02:58]
• This banter underscores the sense that the Court feels increasingly detached from real-world concerns and accountability.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Judicial Ethics & Recusal:
  • Stern: “Alito did not recuse himself from a case involving Paul Singer's hedge fund. Billions of dollars tied up in this case.” [03:28]
• On Accountability:
  • Guest: “The legal system is where alternate facts don't work. The legal system is where all of these bogus made up arguments that are just ridiculous will not withstand scrutiny.” [01:38]
• On the Court’s Work Habits:
  • Stern: “Yeah, because you know, they don't want to have to go all the way into work... they're just justices. What do they even have to do there?” [02:49]
  • Lithwick: “We should stop calling it the Roberts Court and call it the soft pants court.” [02:58]
• On Racial Justice:
  • Stern: “This is a bad one. I mean, this is a really big blow to efforts to achieve racial justice in this country.” [04:38]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:14] – Breakdown of the VRA and Chief Justice Roberts' logic
• [02:26] – Haaland v. Brackeen and Native sovereignty
• [02:49]–[02:58] – Justice “soft pants court” banter
• [03:28] – Alito–Singer scandal and discussion of recusal
• [03:55] – Moore v. Harper breakdown
• [04:38] – Reaction to the affirmative action decision

---

Conclusion

This episode of Amicus provides a fast-paced, insightful look at a moment of crisis and controversy for the Supreme Court. The revelations regarding Justice Alito bring into sharp relief questions about judicial ethics, transparency, and the influence of powerful interests. At the same time, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern offer clear, sharp analysis of the term’s most consequential decisions and the shifting tone of the nation’s highest court.

For listeners seeking clarity on why Court integrity and transparency matter—and how recent events might reshape faith in American justice—this episode is essential.

---

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hi, I'm Dahlia Lithwick. I'm the host of Amicus, Slate's podcast about the courts, the Supreme Court and the law. We are so glad you've joined us for our opinionpalooza coverage where we have been all over the Supreme Court's slew of end of term decisions. Mark Joseph Stern and I are a little punch drunk, but we wouldn't have done it with anyone else. This was one of the emergency episodes we released as part of our work trying to define a new approach to how the media covers the Supreme Court. Bonus episodes of Amicus are usually reserved for Slate plus members, but due to the urgent nature of this work at this time, we were really glad to share these extra episodes with all of our listeners for a limited time. And we were able to do that in large part because of the support of our amazing Slate plus members. So thank you, Slate plus members, for sharing the bounty. It's been a wild ride. We're going to bring you this emergency edition of Amicus in the wake of a big and unbelievably surprising decision that came down from the court Thursday morning to not further eviscerate what's left of the Voting Rights Act.

[B]

It's this idea that you can totally cut race out of VRA claims and still come up with a fair map. And what Roberts says is that gets this entirely backwards.

[C]

Seeing an indictment like this, if it were not Donald Trump, I would say, of course the defendant is going to plead guilty.

[A]

Hi and welcome to another special edition of Amicus. This is Slate podcast.

[C]

We really are at an important milestone of accountability. The legal system is where alternate facts don't work. The legal system is where all of these bogus made up arguments that are just ridiculous will not withstand scrutiny.

[A]

So here we are popping in to talk about a huge, important case that came down on Thursday morning from the Supreme Court, Haaland vs Brackeen, I.e. the Indian child Welfare act case that threatened to massively undermine tribal sovereignty. We're gonna talk for a minute about Smith versus United States, which might have been important when Jack Smith was deciding last week whether to file his indictment in US v. Trump in Florida or D.C. so to do all this really.

[B]

Affirms in pretty resounding rhetoric the sweeping power of Congress to step in and protect Native Famil and tribes from destruction.

[A]

We are told by Mark Stern that the justices are just too lazy to get out of their soft pants. And so we're only going to hear more decisions next Thursday. Is that correct?

[B]

Yeah, because you know, they don't want to have to go all the way into work. Like who goes into the office these days? Dalia, come on, it's 2023. They're just justices. What do they even have to do there?

[A]

We should stop calling it the Roberts Court and call it the soft pants court. So we are popping into your noise canceling headphones today, even before Thursday's decision dump, because a set of deeply strange and problematic events occurred on Tuesday night late. And while they don't directly have to do with the pending cases, they certainly have a good deal to do with who gets their issues in front of the court and who decides how those decisions come out.

[B]

And Alito did not recuse himself from a case involving Paul Singer's house hedge fund. Billions of dollars tied up in this case.

[A]

And we are coming to you on a Tuesday this week with a special bonus episode because in a rather remarkable 6 to 3 decision Tuesday morning, the U.S. supreme Court handed down Moore v. Harper, one of the most important cases of the 2022 term.

[C]

The Independent state legislature theory was the centerpiece of the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

[A]

Hey, listen for the folks who've been talking about the newly moderate 333 Court in a series of important race cases over the last few weeks. Today on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled, with all six Republican appointed justices in the majority, that race conscious admission programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, thereby ending race based affirmative action in college admissions for both public and private universities. Mark Joseph Stern, my trusty co pilot who is reading these opinions as fast as he can.

[B]

Yeah, I can't say I'm happy to be here, even though it's always great to be in your presence. Dalia, this is a, this is a bad one. I mean, this is a really big blow to efforts to achieve racial justice in this country.

[A]

The full version of this episode is now exclusively available to our Slate plus members. If you want to have access to bonus content like this ad, free versions of all Slate's podcasts, bonus content from your other favorite shows like Slow Burn and the Waves. And if you'd like to never again hit a [e-mail] you can go to slate.comamicusplus to become a member. That's slate.comamicusplus Sign up to make sure you never miss a moment of amicus in June, July or any time of year. We are heading into our summer season going back to bi weekly episodes looking at books and writing and thinking about the high court. That takes us out of the spin cycle of the cases and controversies and lets us consider some bigger themes, or maybe just looks at the court from a whole nother angle. We'll be back with weekly episodes in September as we ramp up to another term at the Supreme Court and that first Monday in October. In the meantime, thank you so much for listening and thanks for supporting the work that we do.