POLITICS
As the U.S. presidential election draws near, outgoing President Joe Biden has pushed for reform of the Supreme Court. The control of this key institution — whether by Democratic or Republican appointees — shapes American domestic and, at times, foreign policy. While all eyes are on the presidential race, a notable shift to the right is already happening: the Supreme Court is making controversial conservative decisions on issues like abortion, LGBT rights, and gun ownership. If Trump wins, the Supreme Court could not only assist him in evading prosecution, but also in significantly expanding his presidential powers.
Content
Why the Supreme Court is so important
The conservative turn
Americans are losing faith in the court's impartiality
Biden's proposed changes
Chances for court reform
Why the Supreme Court is so important
The Supreme Court is the top judicial authority in the United States, responsible for interpreting both the Constitution and other laws. It serves as a mediator between the executive and legislative branches and resolves disputes between the federal government, state authorities, and local governments. Additionally, since the U.S. legal system relies on precedents, the Supreme Court's rulings set binding guidelines for lower courts in similar cases. Currently, the Court is made up of nine justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents and selected for their conservative views, which often influence their decisions.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.
The current U.S. Supreme Court
Even a single new justice can significantly shift the balance of the Court. Despite their formal non-partisanship, Supreme Court justices often have very different views on interpreting laws. Democratic presidents typically appoint liberal justices who believe the Constitution should evolve with social changes, a perspective known as the “living Constitution” theory. On the other hand, Republican presidents generally choose conservative justices who see the Constitution as a fixed document, interpreting it based on the intentions of the founding fathers of the late 18th century. These justices are known as textualists or originalists.
The conservative turn
Currently, six of the nine Supreme Court justices hold conservative views and were appointed by Republican presidents, while only three were appointed by Democrats. This outcome is the result of a combination of chance and strategic decisions by Republicans. For example, when conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February 2016, Democrat Barack Obama was unable to appoint a successor because the Republican-controlled Senate refused to confirm his nominee, Merrick Garland, who later became Attorney General under Joe Biden. Instead, after winning the election that November and assuming the presidency in January 2017, Donald Trump appointed his own choice, Neil Gorsuch, to fill Scalia's seat.
In 2018, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy retired, allowing Trump to appoint Brett Kavanaugh, his second Supreme Court nominee. Then, in a near repeat of the Scalia scenario, liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 87, succumbed to cancer in September 2020, less than two months before the election. Unlike in 2016, however, one party controlled both the White House and the Senate, allowing Trump to push through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett — his third appointment — in late October 2020. During Joe Biden's presidency, no justices have passed away, and Biden has only been able to appoint one justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who replaced retiring liberal Stephen Breyer.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.
The Supreme Court courtroom
The new conservative majority on the Supreme Court has provided strong support for the Republican Party — and for Donald Trump. For instance, in 2018, the Court upheld Trump's travel ban on individuals from predominantly Muslim countries. In 2024, after Colorado and Maine barred Trump from appearing on their presidential ballots due to his role in the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, the Court reinstated him as a candidate.
The most significant recent decision in Trump’s favor came in 2024 when the Court granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution. This ruling could lead to the collapse of many criminal cases against the former president. However, the justices have not been unwaveringly loyal to Trump: in 2021, they refused to hear his lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election, and in August 2024, they upheld a guilty verdict against him in a New York case despite a request from Missouri's Republican authorities.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.
In 2024, the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution
Overall, the current Supreme Court is considered one of the most conservative in nearly a century. It has not only made a number of significant new rulings, but has also revisited many important legal precedents:
- Lifting restrictions on gun ownership
- Removing limits on campaign financing
- Reinstating voting restrictions
- Legalizing same-sex marriages and issues around LGBT discrimination
- Abolishing affirmative action
- Protecting religious rights
- Allowing abortion bans
- Presidential immunity for Trump
Americans are losing faith in the court's impartiality
Many recent Supreme Court decisions have been unpopular with the American public. For instance, 74% of respondents believe that the president should not have immunity from prosecution, while only 26% think he should be immune. Similarly, 62% of Americans opposed overturning the right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.
There are also concerns about the impartiality of some justices. ProPublica journalists won a Pulitzer Prize for their investigation into conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who received expensive gifts from wealthy friends, many of whom are Republican Party donors. Thomas and Alito did not disclose these gifts or their travel on private planes and luxury yachts.
In response to this scandal, House Democrats called for the impeachment of both justices. However, this effort is unlikely to succeed, as impeachment would require a majority in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which the Democrats do not have. In reaction, the Supreme Court introduced an ethical code, but critics argue that it is far less stringent than the codes for other federal judges and lacks an enforcement mechanism.
Historically, the Supreme Court was the most popular of the three branches of government. However, this is no longer the case. In the 2000s, around 60% of Americans approved of its work, but today, trust in the Supreme Court barely exceeds 40%, marking the lowest level of confidence ever recorded. According to one poll, only three out of ten Americans believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and unbiased, while the majority think that their decisions are influenced by their political views.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.
Only three out of ten Americans believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and unbiased
Among supporters of the Democratic Party, the attitude is even worse. Many of them see the Supreme Court as a threat to their rights and an obstacle to the implementation of their policy program, with only 24% of Democrats approving of the court's work.
Biden's proposed changes
As soon as he took office, Joe Biden established a reform commission made up of liberal and conservative scholars, former judges, and lawyers. In October 2021, the commission published a report that included various proposals for reforming the Supreme Court. Options included increasing the number of justices, limiting the length of their terms, reducing the Court's jurisdiction, and even merging it with the appellate courts (which would handle cases on a random basis). However, the commission's recommendations were advisory only, and they were largely disregarded, even by Biden himself.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Biden eventually called for court reform on June 29, 2024, after he had decided not to seek a second term. He described the current Supreme Court as “uncontrollable” and its decisions as extremist and eroding public trust. Biden was particularly critical of the decision granting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution — this despite the fact that he, as a soon-to-be former president, personally stood to benefit from it. Biden remarked:
“The court's decision almost certainly means that a president can violate the oath, flout our laws, and face no consequences. Folks, just imagine what a president could do, trampling civil rights and liberties, given such immunity.”
Biden did not stop there. He has proposed limiting Supreme Court justices' terms to 18 years, a significant change from the current lifetime appointment. Under this plan, each president would be able to appoint two justices per term, compared to the current system in which a president could theoretically appoint all nine justices if seats become vacant — or appoint none at all, if no deaths or retirements occur. Additionally, Biden recommends adopting an ethical code for Supreme Court members similar to that of other federal judges while also enshrining in the Constitution the principle that former presidents cannot claim immunity.
These proposals — if implemented — would have direct implications for Republican candidate Donald Trump, who is believed to have considerable support from the current Court. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris supports Biden's proposals, while Republicans view them as a threat to their influence on the Supreme Court.
Chances for court reform
Biden's proposal to limit Supreme Court justices' terms to eighteen years is supported by 63% of Americans. However, implementing this change would require a constitutional amendment. Some suggest that legislative acts or a simple commitment from justices to retire after 18 years could be alternatives, but this would still need bipartisan support, which is currently lacking.
The adoption of a basic ethical code for Supreme Court justices is also an uncertain prospect — despite it being backed by over 75% of Americans. In a 2023 interview with the Wall Street Journal, conservative Justice Samuel Alito argued that, according to the Constitution, Congress does not have the authority to regulate the Supreme Court's operations.
Nevertheless, Congress has previously enacted laws altering the number of justices, and the Constitution explicitly allows legislators to limit the types of cases that the Court can hear. Yet uncertainty remains about what would happen if the Supreme Court were to declare such reforms unconstitutional.
Kamala Harris and the Democrats argue that if Trump becomes president, he could replace the 74-year-old Alito and 76-year-old Clarence Thomas with younger conservatives, potentially securing Republican control over the Court for decades. Republicans, in turn, worry that their opponents might attempt to reform the Court by increasing the number of justices, potentially adding several prominent liberals and thereby diluting the influence of its current conservative majority. As a result, the future of the Supreme Court is closely tied to the outcome of the presidential election. The winner could, as in the 1860s, shape the Court’s direction for generations to come.
In 2022, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices declared unconstitutional a more than century-old New York state law requiring a permit for concealed carry of weapons outside the home. The conservative majority ruled that any laws restricting the circulation of firearms are unconstitutional if the authorities cannot «demonstrate that they are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation» and point to examples of «similar regulation» that existed at the time of the creation of the American Constitution.
Prior to this, in 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court also significantly limited the rights of states to regulate the circulation of weapons.
In 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on advocacy, so long as it does not involve directly financing election campaigns. Four years later, in the decision of McCutcheon v. FEC, the justices removed the limit on the maximum amount of total individual donations (which was $123,000 per election cycle). Finally, in 2021, in the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court prohibited requiring the disclosure of information about sponsors from non-profit organizations.
On the wave of the civil rights movement in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited many discriminatory practices through which the authorities of southern states deprived African Americans of the opportunity to participate in elections. In particular, states and counties that had previously discriminated against their voters were required to coordinate changes in electoral legislation with the federal government. However, because of the efforts of conservative judges, only the shell of the law remained.
In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the justices decided that racial discrimination against voters was a thing of the past, and that it was no longer necessary to coordinate changes in laws. Within five years after this decision, laws were introduced in 15 states complicating voter registration and the voting process. Around one thousand polling stations were closed, mainly in places where African Americans predominately live, and turnout among this demographic group began to decrease relative to the similar turnout of white voters. In 2021, in the case of Brnovich v. DNC, the court further limited the 1965 law, significantly complicating the possibility of challenging electoral legislation due to racial discrimination.
In 2018, in Abbott v. Perez, the Court decided that the map of electoral districts in Texas was not racially discriminatory. A year later, in Rucho v. Common Cause, it ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a «political» issue and was beyond the Court's authority.
In 2015, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriages as constitutional. However, since then, the conservative majority has taken an increasingly aggressive stance against the rights of LGBTQ Americans. In 2019, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the justices decided that the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination in various spheres, does not extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Court also limited state anti-discrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ citizens, siding with religious conservatives. In 2018, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices ruled in favor of a baker whom Colorado authorities accused of discrimination for his refusal on religious grounds to bake a cake for same-sex spouses. In a similar case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court supported a designer who refused to create a wedding website for an LGBTQ couple.
One of the most high-profile decisions of the Court in 2023 was the overturning of «positive discrimination» in universities, along with a precedent set in 2003. The Court agreed with the applicants from Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the universities had discriminated against them based on race by giving preference in admissions to students of African and Latino descent.
In recent years, the Court has increasingly sided with religious Americans, typically conservative Christians, and has even created exceptions in existing laws for them. For example, in 2012 and 2020, in the cases Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court ruled that federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination do not apply to religious organizations, even when the issue involves teachers at religious schools rather than clergy.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the justices decided at least five times that restrictions on mass gatherings did not apply to churches. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the justices went further, stating that any exemptions in laws for non-religious organizations also allow for non-compliance based on religious objections.
In 1973, the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade. The justices determined that this right stemmed from the right to privacy, which they derived from other rights enshrined in the Constitution. Following the same logic, the Court declared bans on same-sex relations, contraception, and interracial and same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The Court also decided that abortions could not be banned during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only be subject to «reasonable» restrictions during the second trimester, and could be banned in the third trimester with exceptions for health risks to the mother. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court moved away from the trimester framework but still upheld the right to abortion, which continued for another 30 years.
However, in 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, conservative justices radically overturned these precedents, ruling that the right to abortion is neither in the Constitution nor in the historical traditions of the United States. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, even called for further action to overturn all precedents derived from what he believes to be a non-existent right to privacy.
The Court's decision allowed for the implementation of any abortion bans and restrictions. Consequently, 14 states soon imposed complete bans on abortion, sometimes without exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Another six states have banned abortions after the 6th or 12th week of pregnancy.
The most controversial Supreme Court decision of 2024 came in the case Trump v. United States, where former President Donald Trump sought to have criminal charges against him dismissed, citing immunity from prosecution. All six conservative justices agreed with Trump’s arguments, despite presidential immunity not being mentioned in the Constitution — or in the historical traditions of the United States.
The justices ruled that the president has immunity within the scope of exercising constitutional powers, such as in the roles of commander-in-chief, appointing ambassadors, and granting presidential pardons. For actions outside this “external perimeter” of duties, which could encompass nearly all presidential actions, the president has “presumptive immunity,” placing a greater burden on any prosecutor bringing a case against a former president. Immunity does not cover actions taken by the president as a private citizen.