Alito Defends Dobbs Decision, Cites Constitution's Original Meaning

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito defended the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, asserting that the Constitution does not inherently grant a right to abortion. In a prerecorded interview with Fox News Sunday, Alito, who authored the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, characterized the decision as a straightforward interpretation of the Constitution as written.

"I know this is very controversial, but I thought it was perfectly clear that the reference to liberty in the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 did not mean that there is a constitutional right to abortion," Alito stated. He further explained that in 1868, abortion was illegal in most states, making it unlikely that the amendment intended to invalidate those laws.

Alito, a proponent of originalism—the legal philosophy of interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time of its ratification—described himself as a "working judicial originalist." He noted that the Dobbs decision, which returned the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states and Congress, was a direct application of this legal philosophy.

The interview preceded the Supreme Court's commencement of its new term. Alito also discussed the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion in May 2022, calling it an "unprecedented" breach of trust that led to a "grave" security situation. He mentioned that the leak predictably made the justices in the majority "targets for assassination," referencing the foiled assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Republican-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett had previously shared her experience of needing to explain the security concerns to her children following the leak. Alito indicated he has a theory about the leaker but stated that the available evidence is insufficient to identify the individual.

Alito also expressed concern over the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, suggesting a "concerted effort to intimidate the court and justices" to influence rulings. He drew a parallel between the challenges to constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and the handling of the Dobbs decision, citing instances where freedoms like speech and religion were perceived as being "downgraded."