Peter Canellos Discusses Biography of Justice Samuel Alito and Conservative Legal Movement

Peter Canellos, a journalist and author, has written "Revenge for the Sixties: Sam Alito and the Triumph of the Conservative Legal Movement." The book explores Justice Samuel Alito's personal history and his role within the conservative legal movement. Canellos is also the author of "The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America’s Judicial Hero" and edited "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." His work has earned him a Pulitzer Prize finalist recognition and awards including the George Polk Award and the Robin Toner Award.

In his book, Canellos describes Justice Alito's upbringing and influences. Alito's family were Italian American immigrants, and he grew up in Chambersburg, Trenton, New Jersey. Canellos identifies this background, along with Alito's Catholic faith and experience during the Cold War, as shaping his adherence to what he perceived as an American tradition. Canellos states that "an immigrant family’s sense of opportunity, a churchgoer’s religious certitude, and a Cold War allegiance to original conceptions of constitutional liberties" combined to form Alito's worldview.

Alito attended Princeton University in 1968, a period of social change marked by the arrival of women students and anti-war protests. Canellos notes Alito's participation in ROTC and his view that the university's response to protests punished disciplined students. At Yale Law School, Alito encountered professors Robert Bork and John Hart Ely, who were critical of *Roe v. Wade*. Canellos indicates Alito found their views persuasive.

The conservative legal movement, particularly the Federalist Society, provided a platform for individuals who shared Alito's beliefs. Canellos points out that Alito, despite not being at the forefront of social change, found a professional path through this network. When Edwin Meese became Attorney General, membership in the Federalist Society became beneficial for career advancement. Canellos mentions that Alito, initially hesitant about political activism, provided a memo to Chuck Cooper, an aide to Meese, outlining his conservative views. This memo later received scrutiny during Alito's Supreme Court confirmation.

Canellos discusses the trajectory of the conservative legal movement after the Senate rejected Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination in 1987. He states that Bork's supporters believed his views were misrepresented. Following Bork's defeat, legal conservatives, according to Canellos, adjusted their approach and connected with the religious right and anti-abortion groups. Canellos notes this collaboration generated political influence for conservatives.

Regarding Alito's professional relationships, Canellos mentions Maryanne Trump Barry, who worked with Alito at the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office and later served with him on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Barry's connection to the Trump family gave Alito an indirect link to them. Charles Cooper, a former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, also played a role in Alito's career, elevating him to a position in the Office of Legal Counsel. There, Alito contributed to the development of the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president maintains broad control over executive functions.

During his confirmation hearing, Alito conveyed to Senator Ted Kennedy his belief in precedents and a right to privacy, stating, "I believe that there is a right to privacy. I think it’s settled as part of the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment." However, Canellos explains that Alito's later jurisprudence, as seen in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization*, restricts unenumerated rights to those "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Canellos notes this interpretation, drawn from Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in *Glucksberg v. Washington*, excludes abortion and other practices not historically embraced.

Canellos also addresses Alito's views on racial justice. He observes that Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts advocate for a narrow interpretation of the equal protection clause, requiring extensive fact-finding before permitting race-based solutions to discrimination. Canellos suggests this perspective might stem from Alito's own experiences with prejudice against Italian Americans, leading him to believe individuals can overcome inequities without government intervention.

On religious freedom, Canellos describes Alito's view as advocating that the First Amendment's free exercise clause can justify violations of certain neutrally applied laws by religious individuals or organizations. Canellos notes this arises frequently in cases involving non-discrimination rules affecting the LGBTQ community. He highlights that Alito's stance, while not fully embraced by all conservative justices, represents a shift in constitutional interpretation.

Canellos concludes by stating the future impact of Alito's jurisprudence will depend on the composition of future courts. He suggests that if subsequent liberal or moderate presidents appoint justices who re-evaluate current understandings of issues like abortion rights and affirmative action, Alito could be seen as a figure in a period of judicial flux. Conversely, if the current conservative majority endures and society adapts to its rulings, Alito would be viewed as central to a reformation of American law.