Alito Book Sparks Unlikely Rebuke From the Right

WHO:

Alternet - Justice Samuel Alito is the author of *So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country*, a book largely consisting of previously delivered speeches.

Alternet - Reviewers cited include Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, *The Washington Post*’s Jason Willick, and libertarian writer Damon Root, who wrote for *Reason*.

Alternet - Justice Antonin Scalia opposed using the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the *McDonald v. Chicago* proceedings.

Alternet - Justice Clarence Thomas criticized Alito’s historical discussion in a case concerning Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding, saying it did not directly connect the history to the U.S. Constitution.

Alternet - The article identifies Ian Millhiser as a Vox writer who discussed the conservative backlash against Alito’s book.

Vox - Justice Samuel Alito wrote *So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country*; Vox describes it as mostly a collection of his old speeches.

WHAT:

Alternet - Conservative reviewers argued that Alito’s decisions can appear driven by political beliefs, with originalist justifications supplied afterward.

Alternet - Root wrote that the historical evidence in *McDonald v. Chicago* pointed toward applying the Second Amendment to states through the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause; Alito rejected that approach.

Alternet - Alito wrote that accepting the Privileges or Immunities argument would have “opened a can of worms” because groups including libertarians, social conservatives, progressives, and socialists could argue for rights they favored.

Alternet - Millhiser cited Alito’s argument that originalism must produce “good results” to remain influential. Willick questioned who decides what counts as good.

Alternet - Alito discussed historical conflicts between Parliament and the English monarchy in a case about Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding.

Alternet - Goldsmith said Alito supported the Trump administration in every important second-term case and dissented in its major defeats; the article contrasts this with Alito’s approach during President Barack Obama’s administration.

Vox - The available Vox excerpt says the book is not expected to introduce bold new ideas and describes its reception among writers who share Alito’s views.

WHERE:

Alternet - The *McDonald v. Chicago* dispute concerned applying the Second Amendment to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Alternet - The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding case involved historical references to conflicts between Parliament and the English monarchy.

WHY:

Alternet - Critics questioned whether Alito applies originalism consistently, arguing his stated standard could let political preferences determine when he follows or sets aside the method.

HOW:

Alternet - The article defines originalism as interpreting constitutional words according to their original public meaning when the case was presented or the law was written; conservatives have used it to oppose judges substituting personal preferences for law.

(UPDATED October 21, 2026 00:35 UTC)

Justice Samuel Alito’s new book, *So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country*, largely collects speeches, but conservative reviewers have questioned whether his originalism is applied consistently or shaped by political preferences. In *McDonald v. Chicago*, Alito rejected using the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to apply the Second Amendment to state and local governments, warning that it could open the door to competing claims for favored rights. Reviewers also challenged his historical reasoning in a case over Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding, while Jack Goldsmith said Alito backed the Trump administration in every important second-term case and dissented in its major defeats.