Justice Alito Treated For Dehydration After Philadelphia Incident

Supreme Court justices at event with one rushed to hospital

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was treated for dehydration at a hospital following a March

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was treated for dehydration at a hospital following a March 20 incident in Philadelphia, according to sources who spoke to Fox News. He was not admitted and returned home the same night without complications, sources said.

Alito, 76, attended a Federalist Society dinner that evening and reported feeling lightheaded, prompting his security detail to recommend a hospital visit. Two sources who were present said there was no emergency and that Alito did not faint, Fox News reported.

Because Alito and his wife were planning to return to their home in Northern Virginia, they stopped at a hospital as a precaution, sources said. He was treated for dehydration and released shortly after, according to one source.

Alito was in Philadelphia for a Federalist Society event honoring his jurisprudence, sources said. He did not attend earlier panels that day, but he did participate in a pre-dinner reception and the evening event alongside several federal judges, including former clerks.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court of the United States released opinions from the bench, though Alito was not present in the courtroom. He did attend the court’s private conference with fellow justices following the session, sources said.

After the dinner, Alito agreed to seek medical attention at the recommendation of his security detail, sources said. He has since returned to the bench and has not experienced any additional issues, according to those familiar with the situation.

Observers said he appeared normal during the proceedings

Alito turned 76 this week and was present for Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship, which were also attended by Donald Trump. Observers said he appeared normal during the proceedings.

Alito was nominated to the court in 2005 by former President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2006. He is currently the second-oldest member of the court, behind Justice Clarence Thomas, who is 77.

Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s left-leaning justices on Monday in a narrow immigration ruling that could signal the justices’ approach in upcoming immigration-related cases.

The 5-4 decision in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi focused on the federal government’s interpretation of a 60-day “voluntary departure” window, a provision that allows certain immigrants—deemed to have “good moral character”—to leave the U.S. voluntarily within that period rather than face formal removal.

The court ruled that if a voluntary departure deadline under the 60-day timeframe falls on a weekend or a federal holiday, it must be extended to the next business day.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch emphasized that this interpretation of the 60-day voluntary departure period is consistent with long-standing administrative practices, including those commonly applied in immigration law.

When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘long standing administrative construction,’

“When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘long-standing administrative construction,’ the Court generally presumes the new provision works in harmony with what came before,” Gorsuch said.

“Since at least the 1950s, immigration regulations have provided that when calculating deadlines, the term ‘day’ carries its specialized meaning by excluding Sundays and legal holidays (and later Saturdays) if a deadline would otherwise fall on one of those days,” Gorsuch added.

He went on to note that the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed by Congress, uses the same reading.

Gorsuch was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling overturns the decisions of both the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had previously rejected this interpretation in the case of Monsalvo Velázquez, a 32-year-old Colorado resident ordered for removal in 2019.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *