Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court who has served on the bench since January 31, 2006. Nominated by President George W. Bush, Alito sits on the Supreme Court of the United States and is widely identified with the Court's conservative wing. His opinions and dissents have influenced debates about federalism, administrative power, religious liberty, and reproductive rights.

Born in 1950, Alito attended Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale. He worked in the U.S. Department of Justice for many years, including roles in the Office of the Solicitor General and as a federal prosecutor. Before joining the Supreme Court he served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where he served for over a decade.

Judicial philosophy and notable opinions

Alito is generally described as a conservative and originalist-leaning jurist who often emphasizes statutory text, historical practice, and limits on judicial policymaking. He has written or joined opinions that stress deference to state authority and skepticism toward expansive readings of federal power.

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) — Alito authored the majority opinion that overruled Roe v. Wade, returning regulation of abortion to the states.
  • Other significant positions — He has written dissents opposing some expansions of constitutional claims in areas such as same-sex marriage and certain administrative-law doctrines.

Confirmation and tenure

Alito’s confirmation in 2006 followed a contentious Senate process that examined his record and views on precedent. Since joining the Court he has been a consistent vote in many high-profile cases and a frequent author of opinions that reshape institutional law.

Controversies and legacy

Throughout his tenure Alito has been the subject of public discussion about judicial impartiality, the appropriate role of precedent, and the ethical obligations of justices. Supporters praise his textual approach and steadiness, while critics argue his rulings have significant social and political effects. His service continues to be a central part of contemporary constitutional debate.