Alito rules out overturning same-sex marriage ruling during book tour
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, promoting his new book "So Ordered: An Originalist's View of the Constitution," stated in a CBS interview that the court will not overturn the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage ruling, citing societal reliance on the decision. Alito also ruled out retiring during the current term. The book, a collection of adapted speeches from 2007 to 2025, defends his originalist judicial philosophy.
IllustrationEditorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Reports are grouped by semantic similarity and deterministic rules. Language models may assist titles, summaries, translation and cross-source analysis; the page reads the event directly, while its address stays stable when the title changes.
- Summary covers the current reports
Cross-source coverage
Reporting timeline
Alito's book tour defends originalism, rules out overturning same-sex marriage ruling
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has released a new book, 'So Ordered: An Originalist's View of the Constitution,' consisting of adapted speeches from 2007 to 2025. The book and accompanying media tour come amid speculation about his retirement, which he has ruled out for the current term. In an interview, Alito publicly disavowed overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling he dissented from, citing reliance interests. The article critically examines Alito's defense of originalism, particularly his 'off-ramp' metaphor for judicial reasoning. It focuses on his argument for presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, which the author contends lacks originalist grounding. The analysis notes that Alito's position on Obergefell likely ends legal challenges to same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future, as his vote would be necessary for any majority to overturn it.
Alito's Book Tour Defends Originalism, Rules Out Overturning Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is promoting his new book, 'So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution,' a collection of adapted speeches from 2007 to 2025. The book release coincides with speculation about his retirement, which he has ruled out for the current term but left open beyond June 2027. In a CBS interview, Alito stated the court will not overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, citing societal reliance on the decision. The article, published by The New Republic, critically analyzes Alito's defense of originalism, particularly his justification for presidential immunity in Trump v. United States. The author argues Alito's reasoning is not originalist and lacks textual or historical support, suggesting the book is an effort to defend controversial court decisions.
Read sourceJustice Alito Defends Populist Originalism, Raises Questions on Same-Sex Marriage and Due Process
This article from Reason magazine analyzes Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's views on constitutional originalism, as expressed in a recent Wall Street Journal article and his forthcoming book. The author notes that Alito favors a 'populist' version of originalism, focusing on the original public meaning understood by ordinary people at the time of ratification, rather than an 'elitist' version understood by legal experts. The author critiques this approach, arguing it may struggle with technical legal terms and unanticipated issues like new technologies. Alito reiterates his view that originalism rejects a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as seen in Obergefell v. Hodges, because it was not expected in 1868. The author counters that a strong originalist case for Obergefell exists when combining original linguistic meaning with new knowledge about same-sex relationships. Alito also defends using the Due Process Clause for incorporating rights against states, rejecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause approach favored by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, arguing it would open a 'can of worms.' The author finds this ironic, as it mirrors conservative arguments against substantive due process.
Show 2 older updatesHide older updates
Justice Alito Defends Populist Originalism, Criticizes Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
This article from Reason magazine analyzes Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's views on constitutional originalism, as expressed in a recent Wall Street Journal article and his forthcoming book. The author notes that Alito favors a 'populist' version of originalism, focusing on the understanding of ordinary people at the time of ratification rather than elite legal experts. The author critiques this approach, arguing it may struggle with technical legal terms and unanticipated issues like new technologies. Alito reiterates his view that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, was wrongly decided, asserting that originalism rejects such a right because it was not expected in 1868. The author counters that a strong originalist case for Obergefell exists when combining original linguistic meaning with new knowledge about same-sex relationships. Alito also defends using the Due Process Clause for incorporating the Bill of Rights against states, rejecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a 'can of worms,' a stance that puts him at odds with fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Read sourceJustice Alito Defends Populist Originalism, Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Right in New Book
This article from Reason magazine analyzes Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's views on constitutional originalism, as expressed in a recent Wall Street Journal article and his forthcoming book. The author notes Alito's clear preference for a 'populist' version of originalism, which seeks the original public meaning understood by ordinary people at the time of ratification, rather than an 'elitist' version focused on legal experts. The author critiques this approach, arguing it may struggle with technical legal terms and unanticipated issues like new technologies. Alito reiterates his belief that originalism rejects a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as few expected it in 1868, doubling down on his view that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided. The author counters that a strong originalist case for Obergefell exists when combining original linguistic meaning with new knowledge about same-sex relationships. Alito also defends using the Due Process Clause for incorporating the Bill of Rights against states, rejecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a 'can of worms,' a stance that puts him at odds with fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.