Dems demand Alito recuse from Trump sentencing case after phone call revelation

WASHINGTON (CN) — House Democrats on Thursday demanded that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recuse himself from a case that could delay President-elect Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing in New York after reports emerged that the justice spoke to Trump on the phone a day before he asked the court to intervene.

Alito’s revelation that he spoke to Trump is the latest in a string of ethically questionable conduct by the high court justice and comes amid concerns about the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and its role in implementing the president-elect’s ambitious agenda.

The justice said he called Trump Wednesday to recommend William Levi, a former law clerk, for a job in the president-elect’s second administration. Hours later, Trump filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court to stay criminal sentencing in his New York hush money case.

ABC News first reported the conversation, during which Alito said he and Trump did not discuss the president-elect’s forthcoming motion.

But Democrats on Thursday pointed to what they called the justice’s “troubling past partisan ideological activity” favoring Trump as they urged him to recuse himself from any decision on whether to stay the president-elect’s sentencing.

“Justice Alito’s decision to have a personal phone call with President Trump — who obviously has an active and deeply personal matter before the court — makes it clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics or, more likely, believes himself to be above judicial ethics altogether,” said Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

It’s not the first time lawmakers have demanded Alito step back from Supreme Court activity amid concerns about bias.

Democrats last year called on the justice to recuse from any cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot after reports emerged that flags bearing symbols of the “Stop the Steal” movement flew above his homes in the weeks following the attack.

Alito, who refused to heed lawmakers’ demands, has said his wife was responsible for the displays.

The justice has also come under ethical scrutiny for his failure to report travel bankrolled by conservative legal activist Leonard Leo in his annual financial disclosure. And Alito got an upbraiding from members of Congress in 2023 after he criticized Supreme Court ethics legislation in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

“In our democracy, Americans expect their cases to be heard by impartial judges,” Raskin wrote Thursday. “The mere act of having a personal telephone conversation with the president-elect, while he has active interests in matters currently pending before the court, is plainly sufficient to trigger a situation ‘in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”

The Maryland lawmaker added that Alito’s “continuing display of political bias and corresponding abuse of the public trust” necessitated his recusal from any potential decision related to Trump’s New York sentencing.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon had yet to issue any order putting off sentencing for the 34-count felony conviction against the president-elect, scheduled for Friday.

In his Wednesday motion before the high court, Trump argued that he should get an automatic pause on any sentencing while he pursues a separate presidential immunity claim against his conviction. The Supreme Court last summer ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain “official acts.” The president-elect has said that his New York conviction should be moot because it relied on his official acts as evidence.

Further, Trump has said, the pending New York sentencing could throw a wrench in the presidential transition process with his inauguration just weeks away.

But New York, replying to the president-elect, told the Supreme Court Thursday that it does not have jurisdiction to intervene because the planned sentencing was not a final state court judgment subject to high court review.

In an amicus brief also filed Thursday, a group of former public officials — including Trump’s former special counsel Ty Cobb — argued there was “no legal basis” for a hold on the president-elect’s criminal sentencing and that the court’s presidential immunity ruling did not cover Trump while he was out of office.

“Treating applicant differently solely because he is about to be president violated the fundamental principle that no one is above the law,” the former officials wrote.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss