In a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Samuel Alito demonstrated a striking inconsistency in his recognition of bigotry. While he dismissed President Donald Trump’s inflammatory remarks about Haitians and Syrian immigrants as merely heated language he readily identified historical anti-immigrant sentiment as bigotry when it pertained to his own heritage.
This contradiction raises questions about the selective application of standards for identifying racial discrimination, particularly within the highest court of the land.
Alito’s Dismissal of Trump’s Rhetoric
In the case of Mullin v. Doe Justice Alito authored the majority opinion allowing President Trump to cancel the temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrian immigrants. Alito brushed aside the evident bigotry in Trump’s statements, labeling them as race-neutral justifications.
Alito argued that Trump’s and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s comments reflected the evolving nature of political rhetoric. However, this stance starkly contrasts with Alito’s own identification of bigotry in historical contexts.
Historical Context and Alito’s Heritage
Just six years ago, in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Alito recognized the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment behind Montana’s ban on public funding for religious education. He traced this sentiment back to the Blaine Amendment which aimed to ban public funding for religious schools due to prejudice against Catholic immigrants.
Alito cited historical rhetoric that depicted Catholics as soldiers of the Church of Rome who would subvert representative government. He also referenced an infamous cartoon from Harper’s Weekly in 1871, which portrayed Catholic priests as crocodiles slithering toward American children. This context, Alito argued, revealed the bigoted code language underlying the seemingly neutral support for public school funding.
The Stark Contrast in Alito’s Views
The contrast between Alito’s dismissal of Trump’s rhetoric and his recognition of historical bigotry is glaring. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent in Mullin v. Doe, highlighted the repellent and racially inflected nature of Trump’s statements, which the majority declined to put in print.
Kagan quoted Trump’s derogatory remarks about Haitians, including statements about them poisoning the blood of the country and coming from shithole countries. She argued that these statements clearly indicated racial bias, contrary to Alito’s assertion that they were not overtly racial.
Alito’s claim that Trump’s insults of poor countries shouldn’t be considered racially derogatory because they described the country rather than individual persons from that country, further underscores the inconsistency in his views. This reasoning mirrors the historical discrimination faced by Italian, Irish, Jewish, and other European immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, including Alito, seems to overlook the racist bigotry motivating certain policies, particularly those aligned with the political agenda they support. This selective blindness to bigotry undermines the court’s integrity and its role as a guardian of equal protection under the law.
