Connect with us

Politics

The 'Appeal to Heaven' flag involved in Alito controversy evolved from Revolutionary War symbol to banner of the far right

Published

on

The 'Appeal to Heaven' flag involved in Alito controversy evolved from Revolutionary War symbol to banner of the far right

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is embroiled in a second flag controversy in as many weeks, this time over a banner that in recent years has come to symbolize sympathies with the Christian nationalist movement and the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

An “Appeal to Heaven” flag was flown last summer outside Alito’s beach vacation home in New Jersey, according to the New York Times, which obtained several images showing it on different dates in July and September 2023. The Times previously reported that an upside down American flag — a sign of distress — had flown outside Alito’s Alexandria, Va., home less than two weeks after the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Trump.

Some of the rioters carried the inverted American flag or the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which shows a green pine tree on a white field. The revelations have escalated concerns over Alito’s impartiality and his ability to objectively decide cases currently before the court that relate to the Jan. 6 attackers and Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Alito has not commented on the flag at his summer home.

Here is the history and symbolism of the “Appeal to Heaven” flag.

Advertisement

What are its origins?

Ted Kaye, secretary for the North American Vexillological Assn., which studies flags and their meaning, said the “Appeal to Heaven” banner dates to the Revolutionary War. Six schooners outfitted by George Washington to intercept British vessels at sea flew the flag in 1775 as they sailed under his command. It was the maritime flag of Massachusetts from 1776 to 1971, he said.

According to Americanflags.com, the pine tree on the flag symbolized strength and resilience in the New England colonies while the words “Appeal to Heaven” stemmed from the belief that God would deliver the colonists from tyranny.

How has its symbolism changed?

There are a few reasons people fly “Appeal to Heaven” flags today, said Jared Holt, a senior analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based think tank that tracks online hate, disinformation and extremism.

Some identify with a “patriot” movement that obsesses over the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution, he said. Others adhere to a Christian nationalist worldview that seeks to elevate Christianity in public life.

“It’s not abundantly clear which of those reasons would be accurate” in this situation, Holt said. But he called the display outside Alito’s home “alarming,” saying those who do fly the flag are often advocating for “more intolerant and restrictive forms of government aligned with a specific religious philosophy.”

Advertisement

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag was among several banners carried by Jan. 6 rioters, who also favored the Confederate flag and the yellow Gadsden flag, with its rattlesnake and “Don’t Tread on Me” message, said Bradley Onishi, author of “Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism.”

“That’s the family,” he said.

What about Mike Johnson?

House Speaker Mike Johnson displays the flag in the hallway outside his office next to the flag of his home state, Louisiana.

Johnson, a Republican, told the Associated Press he did not know the flag had come to represent the “Stop the Steal” movement.

“Never heard that before,” he said.

Advertisement

The speaker, who led one of Trump’s legal challenges to the 2020 election, defended the flag and its continued use despite the modern-day symbolism around it.

“I have always used that flag for as long as I can remember, because I was so enamored with the fact that Washington used it,” Johnson said. “The Appeal to Heaven flag is a critical, important part of American history. It’s something that I’ve always revered since I’ve been a young man.”

He added: “People misuse our symbols all the time. It doesn’t mean we don’t use the symbols anymore.”

Johnson said he had never flown the U.S. flag upside down in distress, as Alito did, and he declined to assess the justice’s situation and whether raising the flags at his home was appropriate.

But he called the criticism of the “Appeal to Heaven” flag “contrived.”

Advertisement

“It’s nonsense,” he said. “It’s part of our history. We don’t remove statues and we don’t cover up things that are so essential to who we are as a country.”

Should Alito recuse?

The House Democratic whip, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, said in a statement that the display of the “Appeal to Heaven” flag at an Alito home was “not just another example of extremism that has overtaken conservatism. This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity and Justice Alito’s oath of office.”

She called for Alito to recuse himself from any cases related to Jan. 6 and the former president.

There’s a clear difference between the House speaker displaying the flag outside his office and a Supreme Court justice flying it and the upside down American flag outside his homes as the court is deciding cases involving issues those flags have come to symbolize, said Alicia Bannon, director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Alito’s actions don’t “just cross the line,” she said. “They take you out of the stadium and out of the parking lot.”

Alito and the court declined to respond to requests for comment on how the “Appeal to Heaven” flag came to be flying and what it was intended to express. Alito has said the upside down American flag was briefly flown by his wife during a dispute with neighbors and that he had no part in it.

Advertisement

Another blow to the court’s reputation?

The Supreme Court already was under fire as it considers unprecedented cases against Trump and some of those charged for the attack on the Capitol.

An issue is that the high court does not have to adhere to the same ethics codes that guide other federal judges. The Supreme Court had long gone without its own code of ethics, but it adopted one in November 2023 in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, including Alito. The code lacks a means of enforcement, however.

The federal code of judicial ethics does not universally prohibit judges from involvement in nonpartisan or religious activity off the bench. But it does say that a judge “should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties” or “reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality.”

Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the UC Berkeley Law School, said the flag revelations lead to questions about whether Alito can be impartial in any case related to Jan. 6 or Trump.

“Displaying those particular flags creates the appearance at least that the justice is signifying agreement with those viewpoints at a time when there are cases before the court where those viewpoints are relevant,” he said.

Advertisement

A March AP/NORC poll found that only about one-quarter of Americans think the Supreme Court is doing a somewhat or very good job upholding democratic values. About 45% think it’s doing a somewhat or very bad job.

Fields, Mascaro and Amiri write for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

Politics

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

Published

on

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge criticized the process by which California’s voter-approved congressional map to redraw districts to favor Democrats in a dissenting opinion, saying the state engaged in “racial gerrymandering.”

Judge Kenneth Lee noted his concerns about race being a factor in his dissent as a panel of judges voted 2-1 to uphold the map.

“California sullied its hands with this sordid business when it engaged in racial gerrymandering as part of its mid-decade congressional redistricting plan to add five more Democratic House seats,” Lee wrote. 

“We know race likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker who drew the congressional redistricting map adopted by the California state legislature,” he added. 

Advertisement

DOJ ACCUSES DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN ARM OF OBSTRUCTION IN LAWSUIT OVER CALIFORNIA REDISTRICTING

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo)

The court rejected a claim by Republicans that the map approved as part of Proposition 50 violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing maps to favor Hispanic and Latino voters.

READ THE COURT ORDER – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

The decision allows California to use the map, which could give Democrats more House seats. The California Republican Party said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction. 

Advertisement

“The well-reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court,” California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement. “The map drawer’s plain statements acknowledging that he racially gerrymandered the Proposition 50 maps, which he and the legislature refused to explain or deny, in addition to our experts’ testimony, established that the courts should stop the implementation of the Prop 50 map. We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.” 

REPUBLICANS PUSH BACK OVER ‘FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM’ IN BLOCKBUSTER REDISTRICTING FIGHT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a “Yes On Prop 50” volunteer event at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles. (Getty Images)

Lee noted that mapmaker Paul Mitchell refused to appear before the panel, but had allegedly publicly boasted to his political allies that he drew the map to “ensure that the Latino districts.”

“In embarking on a mid-decade redistricting plan to create more Democratic-friendly districts, California relied on race to create at least one Latino-majority congressional district,” he wrote. “To be clear, as the majority explains, California began its mid-cycle redistricting attempt after Texas initiated its own redistricting in favor of Republicans. But that larger partisan goal does not negate that California’s Democratic state legislature sought to maintain and expand a racial spoils system.”

Advertisement

Prop 50 was the result of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders asking voters whether the state should redraw congressional lines by targeting five Republican strongholds. 

The move was a countermeasure to Texas’ efforts to send more Republicans to the House. 

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 – to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas – and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also launched a redistricting push in his state. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

House maps are typically redrawn every 10 years following the census, and the process rarely takes place mid-decade.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

Published

on

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act Thursday as part of his immigration crackdown, blaming politicians in Minnesota who have opposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ presence in the city and decried their violence against protesters.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

The president made his threat a day after a federal immigration officer shot a Minneapolis man in the leg. The agency said the man attacked federal officers with a shovel and a broom as they tried to complete a targeted traffic stop.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he could deploy federal troops to the state.

Protests have intensified in the Minnesota city in the last week since an ICE agent shot Renee Good, a local woman who was part of a group observing ICE activity, in the head.

Advertisement

Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was killed as she took part in an “ICE watch” protest documenting federal immigration activity, after three ICE agents surrounded her SUV on a snowy street.

Bystander videos shows one immigration officer ordering Good out of the vehicle and grabbing the door handle as another agent, Jonathan Ross, positions himself in front of her vehicle. As she begins to move the SUV forward, Ross raises his weapon and fires at least three shots at close range.

Ross suffered internal bleeding to his torso from the encounter, according to a statement from Homeland Security officials provided to the Associated Press.

“I would say that our agent is beat up, he’s bruised, he’s injured, he’s getting treatment,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters Thursday, saying the agency was “thankful that he made it out alive.”

Video from the incident showed Ross curse at Good after shooting her then walking away from the incident.

Advertisement

After Good was fatally shot, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis” and dubbed federal claims that its officers killed Good in self defense “bulls—.” Still, he has urged residents to act peacefully, warning them Trump could call in the military.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has also spoken out against ICE and earlier this week, the state’s Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, asking the court to block the surge of Homeland Security agents into the state and declare it unconstitutional and unlawful.

“Over the last week, we’ve seen federal agents arresting, threatening, and using force against innocent bystanders,” Walz said Monday in a statement. “They have carried out enforcement actions in schools, at hospitals, and in one horrific instance shot and killed someone… This operation was never about safety, it’s a targeted political operation and Minnesota won’t stand for it.”

On Thursday, Noem singled out Walz for criticism, telling reporters outside the White House that the Minnesota governor is “still is not willing to work with our federal officers to bring peace to the streets of Minneapolis.”

The federal government had no plans to pull out of Minnesota, Noem said, noting she had discussed the Insurrection Act with Trump.

Advertisement

“He certainly has the constitutional authority to utilize that,” she said. “My hope is that this leadership team in Minnesota will start to work with us to get criminals off the streets.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche has also singled out Walz and Frey.

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” he said on X. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

The Insurrection Act, established in 1807, is a federal law that allows a president to deploy the military domestically to suppress in specific circumstances, such as civil disorder, an insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he would be empowering the military to make arrests and perform searches on U.S. soil. In normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law enacted after the Civil War, forbids active-duty federal forces to provide regular civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Advertisement

The president first threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020, but members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move. In June 2025, he repeated the threat against protesters in Los Angeles as people took to the streets to protest ICE raids.

“The people who are causing the problems are bad people,” Trump told reporters then, “they are insurrectionists.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

Published

on

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is supporting legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights.

The governor said on Tuesday during her State of the State address that she wants to allow New Yorkers to “hold ICE agents accountable in court when they act outside the scope of their duties.”

“This doesn’t interfere with lawful enforcement or public safety,” Hochul said. “It simply affirms a core truth: Power does not justify abuse. And if someone’s constitutional rights are violated here in the state of New York, I say they deserve their day in court.”

Last year, New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Micah Lasher proposed measures to allow private citizens to file lawsuits against federal officials who violate their constitutional rights.

Advertisement

REP RO KHANNA DEMANDS PROSECUTION OF ICE AGENT IN MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is backing legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights. (Julia Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Lasher’s version cites Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which allows people to sue state and local officials for violating their rights. The proposal highlights that New York does not have a law in place allowing citizens to sue federal officials.

“Every day, ICE is terrorizing our communities & violating our civil rights. We must be able to hold them accountable,” Lasher, who is running for Congress, wrote on X, adding that he is glad Hochul is taking up his legislation.

Multiple states, including California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, have implemented similar laws allowing residents to sue federal officials.

Advertisement

Hochul also proposed other immigration guardrails, including a measure to require judicial warrants before ICE can conduct raids in sensitive locations like schools, churches and hospitals.

People march during a protest after the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Getty Images)

Earlier this year, the Trump administration reversed a Biden administration policy barring immigration arrests in these sensitive locations.

The governor also announced that New York “will not allow the use of state resources to assist in federal immigration raids on people who have not committed serious crimes.”

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin alleged in a statement to The Hill that Hochul “continues to smear law enforcement who are simply enforcing the rule of law and are putting their lives on the line to remove violent criminals from New York.”

Advertisement

ICE HEAD SAYS AGENTS FACING ‘CONSTANT IMPEDIMENTS’ AFTER MIGRANT SEEN RAMMING CARS WHILE TRYING TO FLEE

Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minnesota. (Getty Images)

McLaughlin also argued that there has been an increase in threats against federal law enforcement officers who she purports have shown “incredible restraint and professionalism in exhausting all options before any kind of non-lethal force is used.”

This debate has intensified after a recent incident in Minneapoliss, where Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement action. Protests followed in multiple cities, and Democrats and local residents have condemned the shooting and urged charges against the agent.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have defended the incident by arguing that it was a justified shooting.

Officials are also investigating a second ICE-involved shooting that happened in Minneapolis on Wednesday, as the mayor continues to demand that the agency leave the city and state.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending