Susan Sullivan penned an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer, titled “I was a law clerk for Justice Alito. He must recuse himself from hearing cases involving Donald Trump.” The subheadline reads, “Flying the U.S. flag upside down, once a signal of distress, has become a symbol of those who reject the results of the 2020 presidential election. When Alito did so, it was indeed a distress call.”
The op-ed presents no new insights. It relies heavily on New York Times reporting and delves into discussions about Dobbs, which is unrelated to the flag issue. The sole reason for Sullivan’s op-ed placement seems to be her former association as a law clerk for Justice Alito. The media thrives on narratives where a conservative criticizes fellow conservatives, as evidenced by the trend of former Trump associates critiquing him.
Who is Susan Sullivan? Her Assistant Professor role at Temple University College of Liberal Arts involves teaching courses in criminal procedure, constitutional law, and the Supreme Court. Her professional background includes:
Professor Sullivan graduated from Rutgers Law School, Order of the Coif in 1990. Following law school, she clerked for a federal Judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (now a US Supreme Court Justice), and then practiced law as a litigator for over ten years in New York and San Francisco.
In her biography, she refrains from mentioning Samuel Alito by name. She takes credit for her clerkship but criticizes her former boss.
In the Inquirer, she describes herself as follows:
As a former law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., I often admired him as a person for his integrity and honesty. As a progressive liberal, however, I vehemently disagreed with the approach he takes to reading the Constitution, the narrow interpretation he adopts, and his reverence for the framers’ restrictive intent.
Is it typical to mention admiring a judge you clerked for only occasionally? When did she not admire him?
Professor Sullivan has a unique connection to Justice Alito and abortion. Her Third Circuit clerkship, which occurred from fall 1990 to summer 1991, coincided with the argument of Planned Parenthood v. Casey before the Third Circuit in February 1991. During that time, then-Judge Alito supported the spousal notification provision that the Casey ruling found unconstitutional.
In 2006, during Alito’s nomination, Sullivan offered some faint praise for Alito:
Susan Sullivan of San Francisco clerked for Alito during the year he wrote his controversial Casey opinion, upholding portions of a Pennsylvania statute restricting abortion, a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court. Sullivan, who describes herself as “a social progressive who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty,” says, “In general I would react with suspicion to any nominee of this administration. But having worked with him, I know he does not work toward a specific result. He is not intent on advancing his own agenda. He approaches cases in a very impartial way.”
Sullivan even met her husband, Jim Goneia, while both were clerking for Judge Alito.
Jim Goneia and Susan Sullivan met while clerking for Judge Alito in 1990-91. They are now married, with two children. Their 9-year-old son says, “I like Judge Alito. If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t exist.”
Both Jim and Susan identify as “social progressives” and are both “pro-choice.” Despite this, they staunchly support Judge Alito. Their shared experience during the Casey ruling led Susan to express that if Roe were overturned, she would react similarly to when she read Alito’s dissent in Casey: disagreeing but respecting the decision-making process he followed.
She notes that while on the 3rd Circuit, Judge Alito has upheld and applied Roe, indicating that his rulings are unpredictable. His decisions have garnered both supporters and critics, demonstrating his impartiality.
However, dynamics have shifted, and the upcoming clerk reunion might be awkward.
Conservative judges, in particular, need to be cautious when selecting law clerks, as progressive individuals may seize the opportunity, then proceed to criticize their former employer to gain media attention.
