Justice Alito Releases Book Criticizing Colleagues on Religious Liberty
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
2 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito released his first book, So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country, compiling speeches from his 20 years on the Court on originalism, religious liberty, abortion, and what he calls threats to the judiciary. In a 2018 address at Catholic University of America included in the volume, Alito, who dissented in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, called that ruling “perhaps the decisive point in our nation’s turn against religious liberty.” In a Wall Street Journal interview coinciding with the release, he said oral arguments have shifted from questions to “speechifying by the justices” and to lawyers aiming remarks at outside constituencies, a change he linked in part to live streaming. He also said the Court is not making partisan policy decisions and praised Justice Clarence Thomas’s increased participation in arguments.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
3 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 2 hours later.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Samuel Alito and SCOTUSBlog
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: book
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 6, 10:00 UTC by The Hill, with no named source. First named source 2 hours later, from The Federalist. First document 2 hours later, from The Federalist (book).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage treats Alito's book as a renewed attack on the same-sex marriage ruling, while right-leaning coverage of the same book never mentions that ruling. ABC News builds its story around Alito's claim of a national turn "against religious liberty," taken from speeches collected in the volume. The Federalist instead presents those speeches as a primer on originalism and a call for civic courage, and it never names Obergefell at all.
Left-leaning coverage leads with the marriage holding and faith. Right-leaning coverage leads with judicial method. The Federalist opens on originalism and the mistakes originalists make, not on the marriage decision that fills the other side's account of what the book is about.
Does the book itself criticize sitting colleagues, or does that charge appear only in interviews published the same week?
Bottom line
ABC News made Alito's reprinted Obergefell attack the whole story. The Federalist reviewed the same book without naming the case.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Alito's book reprints speeches calling Obergefell perhaps the decisive point in the nation's turn against religious liberty
- Seven of the 19 speeches in the book were delivered to Catholic groups
- The book is an adapted collection of prior speeches that does not break much new ground
- First Liberty's Jeff Mateer wrote that Americans have more religious freedom today than at any other time in their lives
- Alito describes Icarian originalism as a wrong turn in which originalists soar too high above the text's original meaning
- Alito calls the COVID outbreak and its restrictions a constitutional stress test that highlighted trends to reverse
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treats the volume as Alito putting his “pet issue” of faith on a public stage—seven of 19 speeches went to Catholic groups—and recasting Obergefell as the hinge of a national turn against religion. ABC News highlights his claims that “support for religious liberty has cratered,” that traditional believers face “a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code,” and that they resemble Catholics in post-Reformation England who had been “beaten down” and “shunned the light of day.” The same reporting notes that in nearly all the cases he offers as proof—including wedding vendors, contraception coverage, foster care, and related disputes—the Court sided with the religiously affiliated parties, and that First Liberty Institute wrote there is “more religious freedom today than at any other time in our lives” while the Becket Fund found “faith in the public square is on the rise.” ABC also reports LGBTQ advocates fear from his public criticism that Obergefell may not be settled, even though he said in 2025 he was “not suggesting that the decision should be overruled.” The Hill said the book “doesn’t break much new ground.”
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets cast the book as a call for courage in originalist judging and civic life. The Federalist emphasizes Alito’s warning against “Icarian originalism” that “soars too high” into abstract principles, his account of religious liberty as a legacy Americans must “never let it die,” and examples of fortitude from the Founders, Lincoln, and cake designer Jack Phillips. The Daily Wire focuses on his Journal critique that live streaming has produced “speechifying by the justices” and lawyers “playing to some constituency,” citing a SCOTUSBlog tally in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the Court in words spoken during arguments, followed by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Alito said many arguments now go “far beyond the point at which the additional arguing is making a contribution,” called Thomas “a brilliant jurist,” and told interviewers, “We are not part of any political movement” and “are not attempting to further any political agenda.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is empirical: the claim that religious liberty has “cratered” sits beside Supreme Court wins for the religious parties in the cases Alito lists, and beside allied groups’ own reports that free exercise is historically robust, so the Obergefell commentary reads more as cultural grievance—and a signal that unsettles LGBTQ advocates—than as a description of courtroom results. The right’s strongest argument is that he is naming a different phenomenon than win-loss records: the treatment of traditional religious views as bigotry or “dignitary harm,” which he says is driving believers from public life, together with a process complaint about oral-argument “speechifying” that he ties to live streaming and constituency politics rather than to ideology alone. The unresolved tension is whether that extra-judicial campaign documents genuine pressure on religious exercise and institutional decay at the Court, or uses the Court’s prestige to relitigate a 2015 rights ruling and police colleagues’ styles in public.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.