by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
There’s
a
report
out
from
NOTUS
this
week
that
Philip
Alito,
son
of
Supreme
Court
Justice
Samuel
Alito
and
former
Gibson
Dunn
attorney,
has
been
working
at
the
Treasury
Department.
But
um,
no
one
at
Treasury
was
in
a
hurry
to
advertise
that
fact.
“Alito’s
employment
with
the
department
is
something
of
a
closely
guarded
secret,”
NOTUS
reports.
“He
doesn’t
maintain
a
public
resume
or
LinkedIn,
the
Treasury
Department
website
makes
no
mention
of
him,
and
his
three
professional
bar
listings
are
outdated
or
incorrectly
list
previous
employers.”
The
reason
for
the
secrecy
isn’t
hard
to
infer.
“Everybody
knew
who
he
was,”
one
source
told
NOTUS.
“I
think
it’s
fair
to
say
he
kept
a
pretty
low
profile.
I
kind
of
had
the
impression
that
he
was
kind
of
a
little
bit
sheepish
about
his
celebrity
affiliation.
You’d
go
into
a
meeting
and
if
people
were
introducing
themselves
by
first
and
last
name,
he’d
just
say
‘Phil,’
not
Phil
Alito.”
According
to
a
second
source,
Alito
was
made
an
attorney-adviser
who
would
get
briefed
on
all
kinds
of
important
Treasury
matters
and
offer
legal
feedback,
meaning
he
was,
as
that
source
put
it,
“in
all
the
meetings”
and
“knew
all
the
issues
across
the
board.”
The
same
source
was
direct
about
how
he
got
there,
“There’s
no
doubt
he
got
that
position
because
of
who
he
is.”
All
of
which
would
be
mildly
noteworthy
on
its
own.
But
it
takes
a
turn
to
the
ethically
questionable
because
Philip
Alito
was
working
at
Treasury
while
the
Treasury
Department,
along
with
other
agencies,
was
actively
defending
Trump’s
tariffs
before
the
Supreme
Court.
His
father,
Justice
Samuel
Alito,
did
not
recuse
himself
and
sat
on
those
cases.
The
official
responses
have
been,
let
us
say,
carefully
worded.
“Philip
Alito
is
currently
detailed
from
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
as
a
Counselor
in
the
Office
of
the
General
Counsel,
and
his
portfolio
covers
a
broad
range
of
topics,”
a
Treasury
spokesperson
said.
“As
a
matter
of
both
professional
and
personal
judgment,
Phil
does
not
counsel
on
any
matters
reasonably
expected
before
the
Supreme
Court.”
Treasury
Secretary
Scott
Bessent
added:
“I
am
sure
that
Mr.
Alito
follows
all
legal
and
ethical
guidelines
and
I
can
assure
you
that
at
Treasury,
we
follow
all
the
legal
and
ethical
guidelines.”
And
the
Supreme
Court’s
public
information
officer
stated
flatly:
“While
there,
he
has
not
worked
on
any
matter
related
to
the
tariffs
imposed
by
the
federal
government.
As
a
result,
Justice
Alito
has
not
recused
in
those
cases.”
And
that
Phil
Alito’s
role
was
a
weird
secret
is
just
a
coinkydink
is
what
we’re
all
supposed
to
buy,
I
guess.
The
problem
is
that
the
entire
predicate
of
this
situation
—
a
justice’s
son
working
at
a
department
actively
defending
administration
policy
before
that
same
Supreme
Court,
in
a
role
kept
deliberately
low-profile
—
is
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
the
recusal
framework
exists
to
address.
The
question
isn’t
only
whether
Philip
Alito
personally
worked
on
the
tariff
cases,
it’s
whether
a
reasonable
person
could
question
the
impartiality
of
a
justice
whose
son
holds
a
position
of
trust
at
one
of
the
agencies
whose
most
consequential
policy
was
simultaneously
before
the
Court.
The
answer
to
that
question
seems
fairly
obvious,
which
may
be
why
the
whole
arrangement
was
handled
with
such
conspicuous
quiet.
This
would
be
jarring
from
any
justice.
From
Sam
Alito,
it
lands
differently
because
this
is
not
his
first,
second,
or
even
third
ethics
controversy.
This
is
the
same
justice
who
flew
an
upside-down
“Stop
the
Steal”
flag
outside
his
home
after
January
6th
and
then
blamed
his
wife,
refused
to
recuse
himself
from
Trump-related
cases
despite
the
flag
controversy,
got
caught
accepting
luxury
travel
from
a
donor
with
business
before
the
Court
and
then
denied
the
relationship
despite
the
fact
it
was
noted
way
back
in
2009,
and
has
serially
declined
to
explain
his
recusals
even
after
the
Court
adopted
a
new
ethics
code
specifically
designed
to
address
that
kind
of
opacity.
A
federal
judge
was
literally
rebuked
for
calling
Alito’s
flag
behavior
“improper
and
dumb”
—
because
the
Supreme
Court,
which
considers
itself
exempt
from
all
judicial
ethics
rules,
took
the
position
that
criticizing
a
justice’s
ethics
is
itself
an
ethics
violation.
You
cannot
make
this
up.
The
Supreme
Court
has
spent
years
resisting
meaningful
ethics
oversight
on
the
grounds
that
it
is
a
co-equal
branch
of
government
that
can
govern
itself.
Philip
Alito’s
quiet
Treasury
role,
and
his
father’s
non-recusal
in
the
tariff
case,
is
a
pretty
good
illustration
of
how
that’s
going.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @Kathryn1 or
Bluesky @Kathryn1