Recent revelations have brought to light a curious chapter in the life of Justice Samuel Alito, one of the United States Supreme Court’s most vocal proponents of Originalism. It appears that Alito, who has been associated with interpreting constitutional rights through the lens of being “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” quietly accepted a knighthood several years ago, potentially conflicting with the very Constitution he claims to uphold.
According to The Intelligencer, Alito was knighted by the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George during the presidency of Donald Trump. This move was not widely publicized at the time, but it has come under scrutiny due to the constitutional implications. Article I, Section 9, of the United States Constitution explicitly prohibits any person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States from accepting titles of nobility from foreign states without Congressional consent.
The investiture, which connects Alito with European aristocracy, seems to contravene the foundational principle that American officials should remain free from foreign influence. The framers of the Constitution, aware of the dangers of foreign entanglement, included this prohibition to protect the fledgling republic from unwanted foreign influence and corruption. As Above the Law highlights, figures such as Alexander Hamilton warned against such “royal prostitution,” fearing that even symbolic titles could sway officials.
Despite the historical and legal controversy, there has been little indication of formal repercussions or declarations from Alito. The implications of his knightly honor remain predominantly symbolic. However, the broader dialogue on judicial ethics and foreign influence persists, especially in a climate where the Supreme Court faces calls for greater transparency and accountability. The matter reflects ongoing debates on the boundaries of constitutional interpretation and adherence among those tasked with upholding the nation’s highest legal standards.
Critics argue that this episode provides further evidence of a disconnect between the principles professed by Originalists like Alito and their actions
.