Faced with the bleakest series of US Supreme Court decisions in memory, it just got a little easier. These rulings have ignited fierce fights over the authority of the judiciary, religious freedom in schools, and civil rights. The court’s ideological chasm is glaringly apparent. As the liberal wing, especially as represented by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, has recently made clear in the wake of the conservative majority’s decisions, these rulings have consequences that go beyond legal finagling, sounding alarms about the health of American civic society.
The new, conservative-dominated court did make a critical ruling. Among other things, they curtailed lower courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal executive orders. This controversial 6-3 ruling is generally hailed as a further extension of presidential power, at the same time greatly limiting judicial review. Justice Sotomayor called this amendment a danger to constitutional rights. She explained that this could open the door to abuse by removing protections from people who might not have access to counsel.
“Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” – Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
Alongside this ruling, the Supreme Court greenlit states to require pornographic websites to incorporate age verification. Operators in Texas are already experiencing the negative effects of this decision. According to one estimate, this means compliance could cost them as much as $40,000 per every 100,000 verifications they perform. The court’s cynical conservative supermajority purports to find these measures important to protect children. Critics argue that they constitute a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.
To personal privacy, Justice Sotomayor had already expressed her concerns about how these decisions intrude upon the home. She wrote, “It is giving up all the information about you and your viewing habits – honoring speech that many consider distasteful – to a website’s operator, and then … who knows? This worrying sentiment serves to underscore a growing concern expressed by progressive justices. They’re frightened that their individual rights are being subsumed under the thumb of greater governmental power.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling affirmed a Texas law allowing parents to opt their kids out of activities with LGBTQ+ characters in the classroom. This is the case even for popular, award-winning children’s books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.” Critics note that this ruling just adds hurdles for inclusive education and erodes attempts to affirm intersectional identities in our schools. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out with respect to the administrative burden this decision places on schools, the ruling is destructive because it creates chaos.
“Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” – Elena Kagan.
Even more striking, Justice Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues have issued mighty rebukes. They argue that these decisions are part of a worrisome march toward authoritarianism, spurred as always by the Trump presidency. They argue the rulings reflect a broader erosion of civil rights. They view this as a green light for undermining the liberties our Constitution purportedly used to defend.
As Justice Sotomayor said, in a passionate dissent, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” Her comments reopen the wounds over fears that such a path would threaten our most basic freedoms. Her comments echo those of Justice Brown-Jackson, who has said that these decisions present an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
The ideological divide in the Supreme Court has never been more obvious as we see almost daily. To even more Justices Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Amy Coney Barrett joining almost all Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas in doing so against their liberal colleagues. Beyond differing legal philosophies, this division serves to demonstrate vastly different interpretations of constitutional protections.
Reading the liberal justices’ dissenting opinions uncovers the depth of their concern about the impending decline of American democracy and civil rights. They claim that these latest rulings represent a brazen departure from decades of legal precedent. These norms have long safeguarded minority rights from the possible tyranny of governmental zeal.
These debates are just beginning, and their acrimony is already deepening. The Supreme Court’s recent actions are already having a huge effect on American society. The expansion of executive power would be difficult to overcome and pose real danger to checks and balances between branches of government. Moreover, check-the-judge narrowness heightens distinct dangers to protecting personal freedoms.