Samuel Alito will release new book next year, publisher says
Supreme Court justices
Supreme Court
Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative member of the Supreme Court, will publish a book next year, joining several of his colleagues who have inked deals in recent months to publish.
Alito, who was named to the court by President George W. Bush and is one of its most senior members, will publish the book under the Basic Liberty imprint, part of Basic Books, the publisher said. Alito's focus was not immediately clear and there is not yet a title.
Throughout his tenure, Alito has been a stalwart conservative – and recently a reliable vote for President Donald Trump in cases involving his second administration. It was Alito who authored the court's landmark decision in 2022 overturning Roe v. Wade.
He becomes the latest of several justices to sign book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court's liberal wing, continues to hold public events to discuss a memoir she wrote last year. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump named to the bench during his first term, is publishing a book next month and is preparing to attend events to promote it this fall.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump nominee, is planning to publish a book in coming months as well. And Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first nominee to the high court, last year wrote a book lamenting what he described as an explosion of federal laws and regulations.
Books can be lucrative for justices, who earn more than $300,000 a year but who are barred from receiving more than about $30,000 in outside income annually. Book revenue is exempt from that cap, creating an incentive for the nine to put pen to paper beyond their opinions.
Three Supreme Court justices reported hefty earnings from books in their annual financial disclosure statements in June. Jackson, the first Black woman to sit on the high court, reported receiving just over $2 million from Penguin Random House. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another member of the court's liberal wing, and Gorsuch each reported six-figure totals for 2024 for books they've authored.
While those financial reports were made public in June for most of the justices, Alito sought an extension to file his – as he has consistently done in past years as well.
Alito's book could be a significant draw. A former federal prosecutor and appeals court judge, Alito is widely embraced on the right and often sharply criticized on the left.
Given his seniority and the Republican control of the Senate, there was speculation he might retire when the Supreme Court's most recent term ended in June – giving Trump a chance to name another conservative – but such an announcement did not come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Republican lawmakers call out Canada over wildfire smoke
WASHINGTON — More Republican lawmakers are calling out Canada because of wildfires sending smoke billowing across the international border into their states. Wisconsin state Rep. Calvin Callahan has joined other Republican state lawmakers from Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota in filing a formal complaint against Canada to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Joint Commission. In a news release issued today, Callahan says that 'if Canada can't get these wildfires under control, they need to face real consequences.' He joins a chorus of Republican politicians at other levels of government who have been voicing concerns about Canada's wildfires. Michigan Rep. Jack Bergman sent a letter to Canadian Sen. Michael MacDonald on Monday calling for stronger forest management policies and more accountability from Canadian officials. Michigan Rep. John James sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney last week saying his constituents are choking on toxic wildfire smoke. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 6, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Lula plans new 'national sovereignty' policy for strategic minerals
By Brad Haynes and Lisandra Paraguassu BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday of his plans for a new national policy treating strategic minerals as a matter of "national sovereignty" in order to avoid exporting minerals without adding value locally. "We won't allow what happened in the last century to happen again, where Brazil exports raw minerals and then buys products with very high added value," the president, known as Lula, said in the interview. "We want to add value in Brazil." Lula's comments came as a new 50% tariff hit U.S. imports from Brazil amid a political spat between the two countries linked to an investigation against the South American country's former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, under house arrest since late Monday, is standing trial on charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing. U.S. President Donald Trump, seen as a Bolsonaro ally, has decried what he calls persecution of Brazil's former leader. Trump has long sought to secure U.S. supplies of critical minerals, complaining of China's near-total control of the industry and striking deals with Ukraine to secure critical minerals in exchange for defense help. Currently, Brazil lacks a complete mapping of its mineral wealth, Lula said, adding that his government would start this process by setting up the national council on mineral materials and standards. The council will safeguard Brazil's control of its mineral wealth, allowing the country to become a global leader in the energy transition, Lula said, adding that businesses will not face difficulties following the council's creation. "Few countries in the world have the opportunity that Brazil has in this area," Lula said. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
