William A. Brewer III on the New Supreme Court Term
The Supreme Court opened its new term this week under a familiar cloud: questions about whether politics, rather than law, drives its decisions. The answer here is an unqualified – no.
Unfortunately, a Marquette University poll confirms that most Americans believe the Court is driven by politics. Yet its record challenges this notion. Last term, the justices ruled against the administration on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and National Guard deployment. Those decisions, among others, reflect a Court doing precisely what it should: applying the Constitution and the law, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the Court's liberal minority, put it well. She acknowledged the Court’s conservative majority and her own disagreements. But on the suggestion that the Court simply rubber-stamps the current administration, Kagan was unequivocal: “Quite the opposite.”
The Court’s political label, in her words, is “a bad rap.”
That does not mean the public’s skepticism should be dismissed. When political leaders eagerly claim the Court’s decisions as their own, and its most contentious decisions fall along ideological lines, even principled legal distinctions can begin to look like partisan ones.
Perception is not reality, but it does carry consequences. The Courts authority ultimately depends on public confidence that its decisions are rooted in law, not the political winds.
This term will test that confidence. The Court is set to hear a first-of-its-kind climate liability suit with billions at stake, along with cases on semi-automatic weapons bans, proof of citizenship for voters, and public funding for religious schools.
The justices will be judged by the quality of their reasoning, and so should the advocates who stand before them.
Originally posted on LinkedIn. View here.