Why This Supreme Court Term Matters
Article by Aida Sall, TPT Staff Writer
On October 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s new term began with nine justices — John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and its newest addition, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is also the first Black woman to serve in the body. This term, the justices will review major cases on issues including affirmative action, voting rights, and free speech.
Following the last SCOTUS term, which garnered a great amount of national attention, there has been an increased emphasis on the Supreme Court and its importance. Namely, the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade has resulted in many raising newfound concerns regarding the increasingly partisan nature of the institution and its immense significance.
Commenting on whether this term is different from past SCOTUS terms with regard to its importance, Xiao Wang, a Clinical Assistant Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and the Director of the Appellate Advocacy Center, said, “I wouldn’t quite say so. Some years, you have terms where there are a lot of major cases, so people watch very closely, such as last term, where Roe v. Wade was overturned, gun rights were expanded, and environmental protections were eroded. But, I think there have been many historic terms, so I wouldn’t necessarily say this term is more important.”
However, he does contend that the Court is more substantially politicized, saying, “I think it has become too partisan, which has been a product of lawyers, interest groups, and other entities. I think the Supreme Court has always been a political institution; it is just becoming increasingly obvious. It has [also] become more partisan in recent years, especially with the retirements of swing justices like Kennedy and O’Connor… They make their own political decisions and as a result of that, the Supreme Court begins to seem like an inherently political body.”
This sentiment is certainly felt among the American electorate, as a recent Gallup poll indicated that a mere 40% of Americans approve of the current Supreme Court — the lowest rate recorded in American history. In addition, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 84% of Americans say justices should not bring their political views into decisions.
Despite this public sentiment, the confirmation of the far-right justices who currently sit on the bench came after Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who at the time led the majority in the Senate, held a vacant seat hostage under the Obama administration to save it for a Trump-era appointment, yet subsequently rushed the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett just over a week before the 2020 presidential election, demonstrating how incredibly politicized the confirmation process is.
While the last SCOTUS term was highly influential to America’s socio-political landscape, this new term could be even more consequential. Justices will essentially review democracy itself, as Moore v. Harper “threatens to fundamentally rewrite the rules governing federal elections, potentially giving state legislatures (some of which are highly gerrymandered themselves) nearly limitless power to skew those elections,” Vox explained.
Justices will also review a case regarding racial gerrymandering, called Merrill v. Milligan, which has the potential to drastically limit the ability of communities of color to use the Voting Rights Act to fight discriminatory electoral maps. In 2021, Alabama’s Republican legislature enacted congressional maps that give Black Alabamans far less U.S. House representation than they should receive given the demographic composition of their districts — and if the court rules that this is constitutional, it could set a very dangerous precedent.
Photo via Vox/Samuel Corum/Getty Images
As previously alluded to, affirmative action will also be reviewed in two closely related cases — Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina — which are widely expected to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that universities could consider a limited account of race in admissions. Affirmative action is crucial to improving diversity, inclusivity, and equity in higher education — and students are not admitted solely on the basis of race; affirmative action is simply a way to level the playing field in order for all applicants to have the same chance at receiving a strong education, regardless of their racial or socioeconomic backgrounds. However, as of now, the future for affirmative action looks grim, with archconservative justices appointed by Trump staunchly opposing it.
In my view, the Supreme Court is a fundamentally broken institution, but there are various ways to fix it. Firstly, there should no longer be lifetime appointments; in a well-functioning democracy, evolving public opinion among the electorate should take precedence over the extreme views of a remarkably tiny subset of individuals. Thus, new people should be appointed after certain term limits; nobody should hold such a position of power for a lifetime.
I also support the expansion of the Supreme Court, as it is crucial to maintaining the bedrock of democracy: consent of the governed. Having merely a small faction of a largely radicalized party is not sufficient. This body has continually demonstrated their propensity for voting along ideological lines over the will of the public — and although it is a very significant undertaking, having the voices of the majority of the American populace represented through SCOTUS is necessary.
To alleviate partisanship and in order to prevent further politicization of the judiciary, I believe justices should be appointed by a separate non-partisan body focused on representing citizen interests, rather than the president, who will likely always appoint people who share their political affiliations. Namely, former President Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — seeking to, alongside Senate Republicans, reshape the federal judiciary and the way in which its place is understood in the existing constitutional order.
It is fundamentally undemocratic and unethical to have nine individuals decide the fates of people all across the country, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable populations. The constitutional framers were very intentional about establishing checks and balances in our nation’s system of government in order to ensure that they are all equal and no branch overreaches their power. However, I would contend that within the past term alone — from gun safety, to abortion rights, to the environment — the Supreme Court has exemplified their unchecked supremacy over the other two branches of government.
Ultimately, the American political system as we know it will eventually break down if institutions continually produce outcomes in favor of a minority group and at odds with the will of the majority of the populace — and as we have seen in the last Supreme Court term, the decisions decided upon by this institution can have long-lasting ramifications. Thus, it is unequivocally necessary to restructure the federal judiciary and the immense power it holds.
The views articulated in this piece are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the official stances of The Progressive Teen or High School Democrats of America.