Samuel Alito Warns of ‘Concerted Effort’ to Intimidate Supreme Court - Newsweek

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned Sunday that there is a "concerted effort" to intimidate the nation's highest court, arguing that political pressure and public criticism threaten the institution's long-term standing.

“There has been a concerted effort to intimidate the court—and justices on the court—to try to influence us to decide cases differently from the way in which we have been deciding them, and I am concerned about the future of the court,” the conservative justice said in a pre-recorded interview with Fox News Sunday.

His comments come as the court faces renewed scrutiny over ethics, judicial independence and several high-profile rulings involving President Donald Trump's administration.

Progressives and some Democratic lawmakers have advocated measures ranging from ethics reforms to term limits and court expansion, arguing the court's conservative 6-3 majority has wielded outsized influence over national policy. Critics have also challenged the court's growing use of its emergency docket, often called the "shadow docket," to make consequential decisions outside the normal appeals process.

Public confidence in the court has declined in recent years. A Gallup poll last month showed that only 34 percent of Americans said they approve, while 61 percent disapprove, of the High Court.

Views of the court fall largely on partisan lines. While 65 percent of Republicans approve of the court, only 12 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents approve, according to the poll. It surveyed 1,000 adults from September 1 to 17, 2026 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Alito acknowledged concerns about the court's standing, saying he worries about the impact of escalating rhetoric directed at both the institution and individual justices. The justice, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, added that while the court "has not always done the right thing," it has been "fundamental in protecting our constitutional structure and the rights that all Americans enjoy."

The justice also expressed concern about criticism the court has received from prominent political figures.

"I am concerned about the escalation in public rhetoric in general and about the things that people in important positions say about the Supreme Court as a whole and about individual justices," he said.

Trump has recently grown increasingly frustrated with the justices he appointed to court, accusing them of disloyalty after a string of landmark rulings went against his administration. After the court struck down his sweeping tariffs in February, he said the justices in the majority were "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution."

Chief Justice John Roberts has previously defended judicial independence against attacks from elected officials, while several justices have publicly spoken about maintaining confidence in the judicial branch.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court for comment Sunday by email.

The court begins its new term on Monday amid continued controversy over its decisions and internal operations.

Critics of the court's conservative majority have argued decisions involving abortion, executive power, voting rights and immigration have expanded the influence of Republican-appointed justices, while supporters have defended the rulings as faithful interpretations of the Constitution.

One of the most significant flashpoints remains the court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, authored by Alito, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion. The ruling sparked protests, criticism from Democratic leaders and renewed debate about possible reforms to the court.

In an interview with CBS News last week, Alito said Dobbs was as an example of a case that "resulted in the loss of old friendships."

Another focus of criticism has been the court's use of its emergency docket, sometimes called the "shadow docket."

Critics have argued the process allows major policy disputes to be resolved on an expedited basis, including cases involving immigration policies pursued by the Trump administration. Unlike cases that receive full briefing and oral arguments, emergency-docket cases are typically decided on an expedited basis, sometimes through brief, unsigned orders.

Critics have argued the process can allow major policy changes to take effect without the same level of public scrutiny as traditional Supreme Court decisions.

The Trump administration filed seven emergency requests over the summer. The court ruled for Trump in four and against him in one, with one withdrawn and one still pending.

During his Fox News interview, Alito defended the court's handling of emergency applications, saying the justices have been transparent about the process and arguing that presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on executive actions to advance policy goals.

"Presidents of both parties have become increasingly frustrated by their inability to persuade Congress to adopt their legislative agenda so they have tried to do as much as they possibly can using their own unilateral power, issuing executive orders or new rules or new interpretation of old statutes or rules," he said.

The court has also faced ethics-related scrutiny in recent years. Alito recently recused himself from a climate lawsuit involving oil companies. Environmental groups and watchdog organizations questioned whether Alito should participate because of financial interests and other connections involving the energy sector.

Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County stems from a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, the City of Boulder and San Miguel County against major oil companies, including ExxonMobil and Suncor. The Colorado governments allege the companies knew for decades about the climate risks associated with fossil fuels while misleading the public, and are seeking damages to help cover local costs from climate-change-related impacts such as floods, droughts and wildfires. Boulder officials argue the case involves traditional state-law claims for local harms, not an effort to regulate emissions or set national energy policy.

Ethics issues involving several members of the court have fueled calls from some lawmakers and advocacy groups for stricter disclosure requirements.

The 76-year-old justice recently acknowledged that he has considered retirement but said he believes he can still make a valuable contribution to the judiciary.

“I am bemused by the retirement speculation," he said in his Sunday interview. "It’s not too pleasant to look up and see the vultures circling around your head.”

He added: “I think it would be foolhardy to make a calculation that I will serve for a certain number of additional years.”

Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors for this story: Steve Mollman and Anthony Murray.