But the Supreme Court has done more than reestablish checks on the president this term.
In some cases, the justices got it right. In cases involving social media regulation laws in Texas and Florida, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion explaining that these sites have unique First Amendment protections, dealing a blow to right-wing efforts to thwart these companies’ attempts to moderate content. In the so-called “Jawboning” cases, Murthy v. MissouriThe court upheld the White House’s ability to contact the same companies about posts related to public health and elections.
The news on abortion was encouraging in one case: All the justices agreed that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in restricting access to the abortion drug mifepristone. In a case in which Idaho tried to block emergency abortions, the justices gave desperate women a reprieve, if only for now, and dismissed the case for frivolous dismissal, leaving open the possibility of further litigation.
But these silver linings stand in contrast to a series of decisions this term that are largely shared by all six of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices and that seek to change or potentially make the U.S. government function less and less. In addition to the Trump immunity case, a 6-3 decision last month overturned long-standing precedent. Chevron v. Natural Resources CounselThis frees judges from having to defer to the executive branch’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. This change weakens executive power and hampers the legislature, as it prevents lawmakers from broadly writing laws in the hope that executive branch experts will fill in the necessary details. Instead, it gives judges more freedom to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch, even though they are unelected and not experts. The latter was evident in a recent related case that also curtailed executive branch power, when Justice Neil M. Gorsuch mistook nitrous oxide, a laughing gas, for nitrogen oxides, an air pollutant.
The conservative majority also believes South Carolina’s racially gerrymandered districts are merely Partisan Gerrymandering — A judge-sanctioned practice that makes charges of racial gerrymandering nearly impossible to prove and further encourages racial gerrymandering.
These results may not seem to have much in common. more There is room for discretion, and in cases involving the administrative state, few. But they fit a conservative vision of government in which conservative judges provide checks on a bureaucracy designed to bring stability and expertise to the implementation of Congressional policy, while leaving the president’s personality less constrained.
Much of the debate about the Supreme Court this term has not been about precedents but about the justices themselves: whether they let politics, or even personal preferences, sway their votes. After scandals ranging from lavish vacations and suspiciously generous real estate deals to upside-down American flags, the onus is on them to prove their integrity to the public. Their decisions, even on contentious issues, have not always fallen along ideological lines. Justice Amy Coney Barrett in particular has been a pleasant surprise, showing more independence than critics had expected.
But this court also There were 32 non-unanimous decisions this term.The 6-3 split between Republican and Democratic nominees is the most common, occurring 11 times, and has determined some of the most important cases. These cases don’t just change a law here and a law there, they change the modern design of government. Regardless of the justices’ motivations, the Supreme Court has impeded the ability of federal agencies to act in the public interest and protect vulnerable minorities — even when Congress has asked them to do so.
