Thomas and Alito's Complementary Judicial Approaches Advance Constitutional Originalism
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "SCOTUS Execution Case Shows Thomas, Alito At Their Best." May 22, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito make a great team because they have different but complementary styles. Thomas pushes for big, bold changes to constitutional law, while Alito finds practical ways to move the court in that same direction by building coalitions and taking smaller steps.
Conclusion
Justices Thomas and Alito work together effectively to advance originalist constitutional interpretation, with Thomas establishing bold constitutional positions and Alito providing incremental pathways to achieve those goals
Premises
- Thomas takes maximalist positions by calling for complete overturning of problematic precedents like Atkins v. Virginia
- Alito takes incremental approaches that can build majority coalitions while moving toward the same constitutional goals
- This dynamic was demonstrated in Hamm v. Smith where Thomas called for overruling Atkins entirely while Alito sought narrower corrections
- The same pattern appeared in Dobbs v. Jackson where Alito crafted a majority opinion while Thomas wrote separately about broader constitutional issues
- Alito's skill at 'keeping a majority opinion together and incorporating arguments from everyone' makes him effective at building coalitions
- Both justices are laying groundwork for future originalist jurisprudence even when they don't prevail in individual cases
Assumptions
- Originalist constitutional interpretation is the correct approach to judicial decision-making
- Incremental legal change is sometimes more effective than radical departures from precedent
- The Atkins v. Virginia precedent is constitutionally flawed and should be overturned
- Thomas and Alito's approaches are consciously coordinated rather than coincidentally complementary
- Building judicial coalitions is valuable for long-term constitutional change