US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts declined senators’ request on Thursday to discuss Justice Alito’s Appeal to Heaven and the upside-down American flag controversy, which raised questions about the US Supreme Court’s ethics and impartiality.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, Rhode Island) wrote Roberts a letter a week ago to discuss one controversial flag, which was flown at Alito’s beach house in New Jersey. Alito’s wife was reportedly part of a property dispute with their neighbors when the flags were raised. In his response to Senators Durbin and  Whitehouse, Chief Justice Roberts cited “separation of powers concerns” and respectfully declined their request for a meeting. He emphasized that justices decide for themselves when to step aside from cases, and Justice Alito concluded that the flags flown by his wife did not require his recusal.

The Appeal to Heaven Flag, which originated from George Washington in 1775, symbolized resiliency during the Revolutionary War. Today, for some Americans, the flag represents a denial of the separation of church and state. The Upside-Down American flag is associated with the January 6th riots. It has been flown as a general symbol of dissatisfaction with the United States government. Both flags have been associated with supporters of former President Trump.

In response to public disapproval of the justice’s possible bias, the US Supreme Court issued a code of ethics in November 2023. The ethics Canon 2 states that a Justice should not hold membership in any organization with discriminatory views. Canon 3 states that a Justice shall not be swayed by “partisan interests” or “public clamor.” A Justice is disqualified when they are presumed impartial. The code states that they should reasonably understand the political fiduciary and financial interests of their spouse and those in their household. The court explains that they initiated the guidelines because “the absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”