Philip Alito, 39, the son of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, has been working as a lawyer in the Treasury Department's office of the general counsel since early in Trump's second term, NOTUS reported on May 28, 2026, citing four former government officials. The office provides legal and policy advice to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Treasury and the Supreme Court describe him as a detailee: a Treasury spokesperson said he “is currently detailed from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia as a Counselor in the Office of the General Counsel.” One former official told NOTUS he was hired to the general counsel's “front office” as the White House sought to staff loyal political appointees across the government.
The job was not publicly visible. He maintains no public resume or LinkedIn profile, and the Treasury website makes no mention of him. One of his final court appearances as a federal prosecutor was a sentencing hearing on April 1, 2025. A former official told NOTUS, “I kind of had the impression that he was kind of a little bit sheepish about his celebrity affiliation.” Another said, “There's no doubt he got that position because of who he is.”
Philip Alito was a Treasury attorney when a lawsuit against the department and several other agencies, challenging Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, was argued before the Supreme Court in November 2025. Treasury did not mention his employment in court documents. Justice Alito did not recuse and joined Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent when the majority ruled in February 2026 that Trump lacked authority to impose the sweeping tariffs. NOTUS also pointed to federal legal challenges to the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, which calls on Treasury to provide the money (see The DOJ Announces a $1.776 Billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' to Compensate Trump's Allies, Settling the President's $10 Billion Lawsuit Against the IRS He Controls), as a potential future conflict.
After the story broke, Treasury said, “As a matter of both professional and personal judgment, Phil does not counsel on any matters reasonably expected before the Supreme Court. Like all attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel, Phil is in compliance with all applicable ethical obligations.” Bessent said, “I am sure that Mr. Alito follows all legal and ethical guidelines.” Supreme Court spokesperson Patricia McCabe said that while at Treasury, Philip Alito “has not worked on any matter related to the tariffs imposed by the federal government. As a result, Justice Alito has not recused in those cases.”
Some court watchers say recusal was not required. Ed Whelan wrote in National Review, “This contention is baseless. There is no evidence that Philip Alito played any role in the tariffs case.” Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a frequent critic of the Court's recusal practices, wrote that he understood the decision: “If a case where Phil had direct involvement ever did reach his father's desk, I'm confident Alito would recuse.” Roth noted that Alito took no part in a 2016 case involving a Senate subcommittee subpoena while Philip worked as an aide to that subcommittee. Federal law requires a justice to step aside “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and SCOTUSblog notes it is unclear whether a relative's executive-branch job requires recusal from cases involving any part of the administration.
Correction (October 2, 2026): This entry credited the Daily Beast with the original report; NOTUS broke the story, and the Daily Beast and Newsweek relayed it. It described Philip Alito as an attorney-adviser without noting that Treasury and the Supreme Court describe him as a Justice Department detailee; both descriptions are now included. It said Treasury “did not disclose” his employment in court filings without noting that no source identifies a duty to do so, and said Treasury was the named defendant; NOTUS reports the suit was against the department and several other agencies. It now includes the view of Ed Whelan and Gabe Roth that recusal was not required. A claim that the Anti-Weaponization Fund case is on track to reach the Supreme Court was removed as unsourced.