The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has come to the defense of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito following a ProPublica report questioning his ethics. The Journal criticizes the report as a partisan attack designed to undermine the Court's conservative majority. They label it an attempt at "Court-thinning" – a strategy to weaken the court's influence by creating grounds for recusal based on even tenuous connections.

The ProPublica report centered on a 2008 fishing trip Alito took with billionaire Paul Singer, which the outlet claimed was undisclosed. Alito, however, preemptively addressed the report in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, arguing that the report was misleading and that disclosure wasn't required at the time. The Journal's editorial board echoed this, stating Alito followed the guidance given to justices then.

Furthermore, the Journal points out that the fishing trip was not a secret, as Alito had mentioned it publicly at a Federalist Society event in 2009. They also dismiss ProPublica's focus on recusal as a tactic to manipulate the Court's outcomes by strategically excluding certain justices from cases.

Alito himself maintained that recusal would have been neither required nor appropriate. He characterized his relationship with Singer as involving only a handful of brief and casual interactions, primarily at large events, with the exception of the fishing trip 15 years prior. He emphasized that he avoided discussions about Singer's businesses or any pending court cases. He also acknowledged being introduced by Singer at speaking engagements twice and accepting an invitation to fill an empty seat on a private flight to Alaska.

The Wall Street Journal also addressed criticism for publishing Alito's op-ed, arguing they allowed him to present his full defense unedited. They criticized the media's reaction, suggesting it revealed a bias against conservative targets. They framed the situation as part of a larger campaign against the Court driven by the left's frustration at losing control of it. The Journal concludes by asserting that the attacks are not truly about ethics, but about regaining influence over the Court.

This incident follows a similar ProPublica report concerning Justice Clarence Thomas and his relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow, which raised questions about undisclosed gifts and luxury vacations.