The Supreme Court recently concluded its session, delivering a mix of outcomes for former President Donald Trump, including one significant defeat and two smaller victories. Despite three of its members being appointed by Trump, the court also ruled against him in several instances.
Predictably, Trump lauded the decisions that aligned with his interests and sharply criticized those that did not, setting the stage for extensive media commentary.
Among the rulings, the one that sparked the most outrage involved the court upholding a $5 million payment Trump was ordered to make to writer E. Jean Carroll. This payment stemmed from her claims of defamation and sexual assault occurring in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996.
Trump’p reaction: "Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!) I will continue the fight against this weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength."
However, the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case means the appeals process has been exhausted, effectively bringing the matter to a close.
Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny
A recurring theme in judicial confirmations is the pledge of impartiality. Nominees routinely assure the Senate they will simply "call balls and strikes," a metaphor famously used by Chief Justice John Roberts. Yet, once appointed, if a justice casts a vote contrary to the political interests of the president who nominated them, they often face accusations of straying from their expected political allegiance—a loyalty test often dismissed during their confirmation hearings.
Currently, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, is at the center of this debate. She authored the majority opinion in a recent 5-4 case where she joined the court’s liberal justices, drawing significant conservative ire. This particular ruling occurred just days after Election Day.
Conservative commentator Hans Mahncke expressed his dismay on social media, stating that "the worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for the next 40 years."
Barrett also issued a dissent on Monday regarding a case concerning the president’s authority to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor. She argued that the majority's decision was too narrowly focused on an emergency request by Trump.
Serving a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court inherently requires resilience in the face of public criticism.
Key Rulings and Barrett's Role
Of the significant cases decided yesterday, one of the most impactful was the court’s rejection of Trump’s attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, which automatically grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Justice Barrett, alongside Chief Justice Roberts, sided with the court’s liberal members, asserting that a challenge to birthright citizenship would violate the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, was enacted to safeguard the rights of newly freed slaves and ensures equal protection under the law for citizens.
Justice Barrett’s judicial philosophy is deeply influenced by her background as a law professor at Notre Dame, her profound Catholic faith, and her association with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian community. Despite her extensive qualifications, some allies of the former president have reportedly characterized her, a mother of seven including two Black children adopted from Haiti, as a "DEI hire."
In another notable decision this week, Justice Barrett penned the majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling that upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day. This outcome was deemed a "tremendous loss" by the former president, who has consistently expressed strong opposition to mail-in voting.
Much like Justice Sandra Day O’Connor before her, a justice who often serves as a swing vote can significantly enhance her influence during the court's private deliberations.
In two other major decisions yesterday, the Supreme Court permitted political parties to directly coordinate with candidates, and it affirmed the right of states to enact bans preventing biological males from participating in women’s sports.
In her memoir, Barrett recounted a moment of collegiality: "Once, when other justices joined a particularly tricky opinion of mine, my chambers celebrated with an impromptu bottle of champagne."
Her commitment to judicial duty over personal conviction was also evident when she voted to reinstate the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber, despite her personal opposition to capital punishment.
Ultimately, the conservative backlash directed at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and occasionally at other justices, speaks more to the expectations of her critics than to any perceived failing on her part. They feel a sense of betrayal, desiring her political support for the individual who nominated her, which stands in contrast to the principle of judicial independence.
