Viewing the Roberts Court as a single, unbroken entity is misleading. Its early phase was a 5-4 court where Justice Kennedy often sided with liberals, creating a sense of balance. His retirement and the appointment of three Trump justices created a new, more predictably conservative and lopsided era.
Related Insights
The Supreme Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional—its main function today—is not explicitly mentioned in Article 3. This power of judicial review was established by the Court itself in the early 19th century, fundamentally shaping its role in the U.S. government's balance of powers.
Congress can alter the number of Supreme Court justices and even limit the types of cases the court can hear—a power known as "jurisdiction stripping"—through simple legislation. Despite this authority, a deep-seated political norm has prevented Congress from exercising it aggressively, leaving its full constitutional extent untested.
Despite public support for the death penalty being at a 50-year low, executions in America have surged. This is primarily because the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has ceased its former practice of issuing last-minute stays, effectively giving states a green light to proceed with executions without federal oversight or intervention.
The argument that "America has always been like this" is flawed. Figures who once appeared to be moderate have undergone a distinct shift in public behavior and ideology. This is not a repeat of Reagan or Bush-era politics but a new phenomenon affecting America's global standing and internal functions.
Contrary to popular belief, Article 3 of the Constitution provides a sparse blueprint for the federal judiciary. It establishes "one Supreme Court" but delegates the creation of lower courts and even the Supreme Court's size to congressional legislation, making the judiciary's structure far more flexible than assumed.
The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.
The U.S. is unique among developed nations for granting judges life tenure. While intended to ensure independence, this practice incentivizes justices to strategically retire under a politically aligned president, injecting politics into the end of their careers just as it exists at the beginning.
Unlike traditional justices who maintain decorum, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson uses dissents to speak directly to the public. By using words like "disillusionment," she breaks the unwritten rule against criticizing the institution itself, signaling a belief that the court's integrity is compromised and attempting to reach a mainstream audience.
The Court increasingly uses an "emergency" or "shadow" docket for major decisions. These rulings bypass oral arguments and full briefings, often resulting in orders with little to no explanation. This practice contradicts the judicial branch's claim to legitimacy, which is based on reasoned persuasion, not just power.
An increasing number of Supreme Court justices previously clerked for the Court, with several directly succeeding the justice they once worked for. This trend suggests a self-perpetuating system where retiring justices may influence the White House to appoint their "favorite clerk," creating a dynamic akin to an inherited title.