A California federal judge has issued a rare ruling barring Joseph Scott Alter from filing further lawsuits against U.S. Supreme Court justices without prior authorization from the court. The judge declared Alter a “vexatious litigant” after he repeatedly filed frivolous lawsuits against conservative justices such as Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Alter’s latest complaint stemmed from grievances over recent Supreme Court rulings that he believed infringed upon his civil rights, particularly objecting to the Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This led to him requesting a billion-dollar settlement, declaratory judgments, and injunctions to prevent further decisions by the justices. However, the judge found that Alter’s dissatisfaction and disagreement with previous court rulings, specifically those dismissing his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, did not justify filing repeated baseless lawsuits.
The judge emphasized in his ruling that Alter’s persistent misuse of the court’s process placed an unnecessary burden on the courts and delayed cases that deserved attention. As such, the court ordered Alter to obtain prior written authorization from a district or magistrate judge before filing any new complaints against the Supreme Court justices. He has until April 2024 to file a written response showing why he should not be officially added to California courts’ vexatious litigant list, which would further limit his ability to file lawsuits. If he fails to respond or if the court rejects his arguments, additional restrictions may be imposed, including prefiling orders that require judicial approval for any lawsuit he wishes to file.
Alter’s lawsuits, while garnering attention for their eccentricity, also reflect a broader dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court. Public and legal scrutiny of the Court has increased, with a Gallup poll from July 2024 revealing that only 40 percent of Americans expressed trust in the institution, while disapproval reached a record-high of 58 percent. The survey showed a stark partisan divide, with 66 percent of Republicans approving of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, compared to only 15 percent of Democrats. Independents fell in between, with 44 percent expressing approval. Alter’s legal actions may be symptomatic of a growing sentiment of unhappiness with the Supreme Court’s decisions and composition.
Alter’s case highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in managing vexatious litigants who repeatedly file frivolous lawsuits. By declaring him a vexatious litigant and placing restrictions on his ability to sue Supreme Court justices without prior authorization, the court aims to discourage further misuse of the legal process. Alter’s grievances over Supreme Court rulings and ensuing lawsuits have raised questions about the mechanisms in place to address such litigants and the broader issue of public dissatisfaction with the judiciary. The ruling also underscores the need for the courts to balance protecting the rights of individuals to seek legal recourse with preventing the abuse of the legal system through meritless lawsuits.
Ultimately, Alter’s legal battles against Supreme Court justices reflect a more significant trend of skepticism and criticism towards the judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court. With public confidence in the Court at historic lows and record disapproval rates, there is a growing sense of unease and dissatisfaction with the institution. The partisan divide in attitudes towards the Court further complicates the situation, with stark differences in approval ratings between Republicans, Democrats, and independents. As legal and public scrutiny of the Supreme Court continues, cases like Alter’s serve as a reminder of the challenges faced in upholding the integrity of the legal system and addressing concerns about the judiciary’s decisions and composition.
