Alito filed a statement respecting the Court's denial of certiorari in a case involving a murder conviction and death sentence in Texas state court. During the sentencing phase, a psychologist had improperly testified that blacks were more likely to be violent. The psychologist, however, was a defense witness, and his statements elicited during cross-examination on race as a predictor of future violence did not go beyond his direct testimony on the issue. The defendant was, therefore, himself responsible for the introduction of the inappropriate race-related statements .
Alito dissented from the Court's denial of an injunction, in a case involving a Washington state law that compelled disclosure of referendum petitions. The Court had previously decided in the case to reject a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the law, brought by supporters of a failed petition to bar domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples. On remand, the District Court also rejected the plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, ruling that they were not part of the narrow group that could challenge disclosure, and in the alternative that they had not shown the requisite threatened harm that disclosure would cause. Alito thought the standards the District Court applied were questionable and that important legal issues were raised by the case, for which there had not yet been meaningful appellate review.