Justice Samuel Alito issued a dissenting opinion in the recent Supreme Court case involving the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemy Act, criticizing the majority for departing from established precedents. Alito argued that the Court's intervention was procedurally flawed, raising objections that some legal analysts say are unfounded. Commentary on the dissent highlights that while Alito correctly identifies deviations from precedent, the procedural challenges he presents may not hold. The case has sparked debate about the Court's approach to procedural rules and precedent adherence.