Never before has the United States Supreme Court come under widespread criticism as its current conservative supermajority continues to threaten that institution’s legitimacy. Donald Trump’s influence is providing a heck of a counterweight. This change in the court can’t help but make observers question whether it can act as a neutral arbiter of American democracy. Amidst this unfolding and complicated landscape, many are left to wonder what is in store for judicial independence and whether reform is required.
Since the start of Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has further consolidated this power via its newly bulwarked conservative majority. This change especially increases the executive branch’s power. This ideological shift has left many legal scholars and political observers breathless. They concede that the conservative Republican-appointed justices of the court have taken the court to the edge of illegitimacy. Not surprisingly, many have found this trend to pose a serious risk of undermining judicial independence and public faith in one of the nation’s oldest institutions.
Chief Justice John Roberts has received credit for his efforts to maintain the court’s reputation as a non-partisan institution. His noble efforts are undermined as the court’s rulings become ever more soaked with partisan bias. In recent years, the conservative justices have shown a willingness to prioritize ideological goals over traditional judicial restraint, which has historically characterized the court’s approach.
In particular, the liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—have adopted a more aggressive stance in their dissents against the majority rulings. It should not be lost on anyone, as their frustration illustrates, that they are up against a court clearly unconcerned by allegations of partisanship. Scholars like Stephen Vladeck have noted that the conservative justices seem “unbothered by the howls” regarding their perceived alignment with partisan interests.
The court’s trajectory shifted notably with Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment, which replaced liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This substitution not only changed the balance of the court, it deepened the court’s ideological split, with justices now sharply divided on partisan lines. The conservative majority – and their supermajority – now have a path to near total control over crucial aspects of federal policy, including spending. In fact, Trump has threatened to withhold funding from “blue” states that would dare oppose his administration’s priorities. This new challenge makes a bad relationship between state and federal governance even worse.
In the past, controversial decisions such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey would fuel fires of legitimacy debate. There’s a strong case that the court managed to do so, even when it issued controversial rulings. The mood these days is definitely one of nervous anticipation. Millions of Americans and every citizen of good conscience should question if the Supreme Court can even be a fair arbiter of justice today.
And so of course the conservative justices have their sights set on what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. This legislation is a big step to ensuring that the integrity of our elections are protected. As they deliberate on this topic, observers express concerns that their ruling could further erode protections for voters, reflecting a broader trend towards disempowering minority voices in political processes.
Critics argue that the current trajectory is not merely an issue of judicial philosophy but rather a significant political maneuver that could reshape American democracy. The liberal justices are upping their game. Their fiery, ideologically tinged dissenting opinions are perhaps a sign of a deepening civil war on the court as they battle to protect their judicial philosophies.
“disempowering”
“diluting”