Thomas and Alito Are Partisan Reactionaries Who Reflexively Back Trump and the Conservative Legal Movement
Source: Jay Willis. "Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will do virtually anything for Donald Trump.." October 22, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justices Thomas and Alito aren't just conservative but act as loyal partisans, backing Trump and the conservative movement even when their other conservative colleagues refuse. He points to their dissents and their decision to stay on the court as signs they are trying to push the law further right and to encourage activists to keep bringing cases.
Conclusion
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are the court's most strident reactionaries, who reflexively side with Donald Trump and the conservative legal movement's policy agenda, and who use their dissents to push the law rightward and encourage activists to keep litigating.
Premises
- In Trump v. Kingdom, Thomas and Alito were the only justices to publicly dissent from the denial of Trump's request to implement a blanket ban on gender-affirming care for incarcerated transgender people, even though the court's other conservatives declined to go along.
- Thomas and Alito vote together 94 percent of the time on the merits docket, and they have consistently opposed abortion rights, voting rights, and gun safety measures while favoring incarceration, punishment, and religious prominence.
- Across many cases (the April 2025 deportation order, the May 2026 abortion-medication stay, the mail-voting restrictions, the declined culture-war petitions), they dissent whenever the court's other conservatives decline an aggressive or extreme position that favors Trump or the conservative movement.
- Their dissents echo conservative-media tropes and conspiracy theories, such as election fraud, downplaying police violence, and emphasizing lurid crime details, and in the mail-voting case they gave weight to harm to Trump's goals while ignoring the interests of voters.
- Despite a six-justice conservative supermajority, and despite being 76 and 78, neither has retired, which suggests they see themselves as stewards of the movement rather than as having completed their careers.
- Even losing dissents signal to activists that Thomas and Alito are already two reliable votes, which encourages new litigation and legal theories aimed at securing the other three votes needed.
Assumptions
- Dissenting in favor of Trump's positions reflects loyalty to Trump and a partisan agenda rather than sincere, principled legal reasoning.
- A pattern of voting with conservative outcomes shows motive (ideology or loyalty) rather than consistent application of legal philosophy.
- The decision not to retire before the midterms reflects ideological commitment to the movement, not personal or other reasons.
- The other conservative justices' more restrained votes are the baseline of non-partisan judging, so deviation from it counts as extremism.
- Public dissents are intended to encourage activists and shape future litigation.
- Legal theories these justices endorse are 'harebrained' and the policy outcomes (e.g., denying care to incarcerated trans people) are wrong or cruel.