118 HRES 1354 IH: Impeaching Samuel Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
U.S. House of Representatives
2024-07-10
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
IV
118th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1354
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2024
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (for herself, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Frost, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Casar, Mr. Bowman, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Omar, Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Takano, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Velázquez, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Bush, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Samuel Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
That Samuel Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Samuel Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I: Refusal to recuse from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States“shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
On January 31, 2006, when Justice Alito assumed his role on the Supreme Court, he took two oaths of office—a Constitutional Oath and a Judicial Oath of office. When taking the Constitutional Oath codified at section 3331, of title 5, United States Code, Alito promised to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. When taking the subsequent Judicial Oath codified at section 453, of title 28, United States Code, Alito promised to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, under the constitution and laws of the United States”.
Samuel Alito, in his conduct as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors, by refusing to disqualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as follows:
In January 2021, Justice Alito allowed an upside-down American flag to be flown outside his primary residence for several days. At the time, an upside-down American flag was widely understood to be an expression of support for the criminal efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and was a symbol displayed by those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, an event that occurred only shortly before Justice Alito allowed the flags to be flown outside his residence. By displaying this flag, he showed support for domestic enemies of the United States, some of whom engaged in an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building, in violation of his Constitutional Oath of office.
In summer 2023, by allowing a flag associated with the criminal efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and with a partisan faction of a political party to be flown outside his secondary residence for several months, Justice Alito’s behavior showed a lack of impartiality as required by his Judicial Oath of office, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
According to section 455(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, a justice of the Supreme Court, like any judge, must recuse from matters in which he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party”. Separately, section 455(a) of such title requires recusal in the circumstances that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”. Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.’s failure to recuse in Trump v. United States, No. 23–939 (July 1, 2024), Fischer v. United States, No. 23–5572 (June 28, 2024), and Trump v. Anderson, No. 23–719 (March 4, 2024) violates both provisions of section 455 and serves as the legal basis for impeachment.
Trump v. United States, a Supreme Court case about the preservation of a functioning democracy, asked the question of whether a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority. The case arose from charges filed against Donald J. Trump for his role in inciting an insurrection in an attempt to stop the certification of votes following the 2020 election.
Fischer v. United States asked whether section1512(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, can be applied to the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in order to attempt to stop the certification of votes following the 2020 election.
Trump v. Anderson asked whether a State court could enforce Donald Trump’s disqualification from office for engaging in insurrection against the United States Constitution when he incited the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol building and disrupted the transfer of presidential power in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
By repeatedly—over a period of multiple years—flying flags associated with the attempt to overturn the election results and stop the peaceful transfer of power, Justice Alito publicly displayed a bias toward those who incited and executed the January 6 insurrection. Because Justice Alito engaged in a pattern of declaring sympathy with the parties before the Supreme Court in Trump, Fischer, and Anderson, section 455 of title 28, United States Code, required Justice Alito to recuse from all matters related to the insurrection.
Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, does not require an investigation into the heart and mind of individual justices. Subsection (a) of such section requires recusal whenever a justice’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned”. Since a “stop the steal” symbol first flew on a flagpole outside Justice Alito’s home, it has been reasonable to question Justice Alito’s ability to impartially adjudicate matters related to the January 6 insurrection. The proper functioning of the United States Supreme Court depends on justices’ commitment to impartiality in both fact and appearance. By disregarding his impartiality and aligning himself through public conduct and statements with the insurrectionary cause, the laws of the United States required Justice Alito to recuse himself in Trump v. United States, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. Anderson.
Failure to comply with subsection (a) and subsection (b)(1) of section 455 of title 28, United States Code, by refusing to recuse in Trump v. United States, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. Anderson, each of which concerned the attempt to overturn the 2020 election by interfering with the Joint Session of Congress to certify the election on January 6, 2021, is cause for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., has engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a justice of the Supreme Court by failing to disqualify himself from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, provides that any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party”. Justice Alito has indicated sympathy with the efforts to overturn the 2020 election by allowing symbols of support for those efforts to be flown outside his residences. Contrary to the clear dictates of the federal recusal statute, which requires disqualification if a justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, Justice Alito did not recuse himself in Trump v. United States, No. 23–939 (July 1, 2024), Fischer v. United States, No. 23–5572 (June 28, 2024), or Trump v. Anderson, No. 23–719 (March 4, 2024) all of which concerned the attempt to overturn the 2020 election by interfering with the Joint Session of Congress to certify the election on January 6, 2021.
In all this, Justice Alito betrayed his Constitutional Oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and his Judicial Oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” his duties “under the Constitution and laws of the United States”.
Wherefore, Samuel Alito Jr., by such conduct, thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article II: Failure to disclose
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Sections 13103 and 13104 of title 5, United States Code, require judicial officers, including Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, to file annual reports disclosing financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, transactions, among other information. Specifically, section 13104(a)(2)(A) of such title requires disclosure of the “identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts” exceeding minimal value, and section 13104(a)(5)(A) of such title requires disclosure of “a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange” of real property exceeding $1,000.
Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., has engaged in a pattern of corrupt conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a justice of the Supreme Court by accepting and failing to disclose trips funded by private organizations and individuals, contrary to federal law and the ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of federal judges. After accepting luxury travel from a wealthy individual with interests before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito did not disclose the gift in his financial disclosure reports as required by Ethics in Government Act and repeatedly chose not to recuse himself from hearing cases in which the wealthy individual had direct interests in violation of section 7353 of title 5, United States Code.
By failing to disclose the gift of luxury travel and failing to recuse from hearing cases affecting the donor’s business interests, Justice Alito has undermined the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court in violation of the public trust. His conduct has caused a reasonable person to believe the gift was offered and accepted in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act and on a basis that would cause a reasonable person to believe that he used his public office for his own private gain or for the private gain of the donor.
In all of this, Justice Alito has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Justice Alito, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.