The Roberts Court Is Taking an Even More Conservative Turn. Why?

The Supreme Court’s recent actions have been difficult to understand, even for those who closely follow constitutional law. The court’s current supermajority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, appears to be taking a decidedly conservative turn, disregarding established precedents and doctrine in favor of supporting President Donald Trump’s agenda.

At the heart of this shift is a deliberate willingness on the part of the Supreme Court justices to ignore reality, as Erwin Chemerinsky pointed out. The court seems to be shrugging off the fact that its orders are being consistently disregarded by the executive branch and instead embracing a posture of willful naivety.

This is not simply a case of misplaced trust in the administration’s intentions. Rather, it represents something more insidious: a 6-4, sometimes 5-4, majority overtly assisting the Trump administration in its governing endeavors. By manipulating standing, balancing harms, and claims of emergencies, the Supreme Court is effectively rewriting doctrine to suit its conservative agenda.

One striking example of this trend can be seen in the court’s handling of voting rights cases. In Louisiana v. Calais, the Supreme Court made it much harder for plaintiffs to enforce the Voting Rights Act, but left a narrow path open for finding intentional race discrimination in redistricting. However, when a three-judge court found that Alabama had indeed engaged in such discrimination, the Supreme Court surprisingly reversed course, citing a lack of “sufficient presumption of regularity” and deferring to the Alabama Legislature.

This decision is astounding not only because it flies in the face of established precedent but also because of Alabama’s history of racial bias. For the Roberts Court, deference to the executive branch takes precedence over concerns about democracy and the rule of law.

The Art of Judicial Activism

Erwin Chemerinsky’s observation that the Supreme Court is manipulating doctrine to achieve desired outcomes highlights a crucial aspect of the court’s recent actions. By redefining standing, harms, and emergencies, the justices are effectively rewriting the rules of the game in favor of their conservative ideology.

This approach is not new; it has been employed before in cases such as Sierra Club v. Morton, where the Supreme Court established that plaintiffs who claim aesthetic injuries have a harm sufficient for standing. However, in recent decisions, the court has suddenly and inexplicably disregarded this precedent, leaving environmental laws vulnerable to being undermined.

The Double Win: A Masterclass in Judicial Subterfuge

The Supreme Court’s manipulation of doctrine is a clever double win for the conservative majority. By rewriting the rules of standing, balancing harms, and emergencies, they are able to deliver victories not only to President Trump but also to their own interests.

This approach amounts to judicial subterfuge, where the court deliberately obscures its true intentions behind a veil of technical jargon and doctrinal mumbo-jumbo. The result is a fundamentally destabilizing effect on the rule of law, as the Supreme Court effectively becomes an adjunct to the executive branch.

Implications for Democracy

The Roberts Court’s radical conservative turn poses significant threats to democracy itself. By disregarding established precedent and doctrine in favor of supporting President Trump’s agenda, the justices are undermining the very foundations of the American experiment.

This trend has been building over several years, with each decision chipping away at the rule of law and the principles of democracy. The consequences of this shift will be far-reaching, potentially leading to a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be a democratic society.

As we watch the Supreme Court continue its radical conservative turn, it is essential that we remain vigilant and critical. We must demand accountability from our elected officials for their actions and ask ourselves what this trend means for the future of democracy in America.

The Roberts Court’s manipulation of doctrine serves as a stark reminder of the importance of an independent judiciary and the need to safeguard against judicial activism. As we navigate these treacherous waters, one thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher, and the consequences of complacency will be dire.

The future of democracy in America hangs precariously in the balance. The time for vigilance and action is now; we cannot afford to wait until it’s too late.