Supreme Court Nominee Hard to Pigeonhole

WASHINGTON — Although Democrats have been quick to highlight many of his conservative leanings, especially in cases involving abortion, Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito is harder to categorize when it comes to free speech and other First Amendment principles.

Clearly a staunch conservative, Alito has nonetheless ruled in some cases during his 15 years on the Third Circuit that liken him more to retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor than to Antonin Scalia, the ultra conservative judge some say Alito most closely resembles.

“He has a deep understanding of the proper roles of judges in our society,” President Bush said at the White House today. “He understands that judges are to interpret the law, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.”

There is evidence to support Bush’s claim.

First off, Alito himself has stressed what he sees as the “limited role” courts play in the constitutional system.

“Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint,” he said shortly after his nomination.

Whether or not that will translate into support of issues relevant to the adult entertainment industry remains to be seen, but Alito’s free speech rulings have shown considerable breadth.

In the 2001 case Saxe vs. State College Area School District, for example, two high school students challenged a school district's anti-harassment policy, contending it violated their First Amendment rights. The students believed that the policy prohibited them from voicing their religious belief that homosexuality was a sin.

Writing for the Third Circuit’s unanimous opinion in favor of the two students, Alito said schools do not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day, arguing that doing so would be a violation of free speech.

“Although the issue at hand was obviously a conservative one at heart, the fact that he ruled based on free speech in this case is important to note,” First Amendment expert and attorney Joel Cohen told XBiz. “It means there’s evidence that expression is an important right to him, which is probably a good sign for people in adult-oriented businesses.”

In 2004, Alito joined in a ruling that said a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. The law had initially been proposed to curb student drinking in the state, but the students argued they had the right to display such ads, as well as the fact that money from alcohol-related advertising helped keep them in business.

“So he has a history of supporting both economic freedom and the freedom to express oneself, ranging from issues of alcohol to religion,” explained Cohen.

Nonetheless, Alito has never hid his conservative side either, especially in the 1991 case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, when he was the lone dissenter in a case striking down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

Because of his views on abortion, Democrats have threatened to stop his nomination by using a legislative tactic called a filibuster, or unlimited debate.

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

FTC Weighs Reboot of 'Click to Cancel' Rulemaking Process

The Federal Trade Commission has invited public comments on a petition to renew trade regulation rulemaking concerning negative option plans, after a federal court previously vacated a “click-to-cancel” rule aimed at making it easier for consumers to cancel online subscriptions.

New Federal Bills Aim to Repeal Section 230

Members of Congress this week introduced two bills calling for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects interactive computer services — including adult platforms — from liability for user-generated content.

House of Lords Approves UK Plan to Outlaw 'Choking' Content

The House of Lords, the U.K.’s upper house of Parliament, has agreed to amendments to the pending Crime and Policing Bill that would make depicting “choking” in pornography illegal and designate it a “priority offense” under the Online Safety Act.

Indiana Sues Aylo Over AV, Calls IP Address Blocking 'Insufficient'

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has filed a lawsuit against Aylo, alleging that the company and its affiliates have violated both Indiana’s age verification law and the state’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

House Committee Amends, Advances Federal AV Bill

A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee voted Thursday to amend the SCREEN Act, which would make site-based age verification of users seeking to access adult content federal law, and to advance the bill for review by the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

FSC Announces Board of Directors Election Results

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has announced the results of its 2026/2027 Board of Directors election.

Report: AVS Group Beefs Up AV After $1.3 Million Fine

Adult content provider AVS Group has begun to institute robust age checks on some of its websites after U.K. media regulator Ofcom last week imposed a penalty of approximately $1.3 million for noncompliance with Online Safety Act regulations, the BBC is reporting.

FSC: Federal Report Confirms Unfair Banking Discrimination Against Adult Industry

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) today announced that a federal report on debanking has concluded that several U.S. banks engaged in discriminatory banking practices against members of the adult industry.

FSC Summit Event Schedule Announced

Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has revealed its slate of networking events and symposiums for its annual summit, set for January 15 during XBIZ 2026.

Washington AV Bill Jumps on 'Health Warning' Bandwagon

A new age verification bill in the Washington state legislature would require adult sites to post notices warning users of alleged health risks, despite a previous federal court ruling against such requirements.

Show More