A series of actions taken by the Supreme Court have led me to believe that the justices no longer qualify as being conservative or liberal, but rather as anti- and pro-democratic. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has reversed decades of work by prior ones whose judges sought to perfect and protect our democracy and highlighted the need for congressional action to check its power. Instead, the majority of justices have selectively and inconsistently applied core judicial and interpretive principles to reach anti-democratic results.
The justices decreed in a series of cases that presidents are immune from criminal liability for actions taken in office and that both public agencies and Congress have little authority to protect the American people from powerful, monied interests. Their rulings lay the groundwork for an excessively powerful commander in chief and a judiciary equipped to thwart efforts to advance a progressive agenda.
For decades, the Court has had a prominent role in preserving our democracy, but the current one’s consistent efforts to thwart democracy without any coherent or persuasive reasoning rightfully draws into question its legitimacy. Only 35% of Americans express confidence in the Court, a record low, according to a 2024 Gallup poll. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in it.
Perhaps no issue is as central to democracy as voting. The Supreme Court has steadily and systematically dismantled democratic institutions over the past decade, notably by repeatedly gutting the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Take three of the Supreme Court’s anti-democracy blockbuster decisions: Shelby County vs. Holder, Rucho vs. Common Cause, and Brnovich vs. Democratic National Committee.
In Shelby, the Court struck down a key provision of the VRA resulting in enabling states to enact restrictive voting laws, making it harder for people of color to vote in jurisdictions with a history of racist voting practices. States began implementing regressive voting laws within hours of the decision, with 23 enacting newly restrictive statewide voter laws within five years.
In Rucho, the Court held that victims of egregious partisan gerrymandering could not have their day in federal court.
And in Brnovich, the Court dealt a major blow to the VRA’s nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting.
The Take Back the Court Foundation identified 32 election-related cases on the Supreme Court’s merits docket from its 2012-13 term — the term in which it heard Shelby County — to the present. Of those 32 election-related cases, 26 had the potential to move the law in an anti-democracy direction, while only six had the potential to move the law in a pro-democracy direction.
In a 2024 decision with wide implications for democracy,, the Court ruled that then-former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts he allegedly committed during his tenure. The Court determined that while the president doesn’t enjoy immunity for unofficial acts, he’s at least entitled to presumptive immunity for his official acts.
At issue was a federal criminal indictment against Trump in connection with his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, a scheme that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. By contrast, Jair Bolsonaro, former president of Brazil, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in leading a conspiracy to overturn his 2022 election loss.
Legal experts have stressed how crucial the outcome of this case is on Trump’s legal fights and the future of American democracy. A decision granting Trump absolute immunity gives the presidency unprecedented protection, essentially allowing them to act without the threat of criminal prosecution during or after their term.
Presidents could be immune from criminal liability should they order the assassination of political rivals, deploy a military coup to hold onto power, or mobilize the Department of Justice to crack down on dissent. This gives presidents full authority to direct the DOJ and FBI to investigate and prosecute political rivals or even individuals against whom a president has a personal vendetta. This prescient opinion is a gift for a leader with authoritarian tendencies.
In her fiery dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
In nearly the same breath that the Court placed unencumbered power into the hands of presidents, it stripped significant power from public agencies that serve the American people. Now it is far more difficult for public agencies to hold fraudsters accountable for violations of federal law.
The Court also struck down a 40-year-old precedent that directed courts to give deference to subject-expert public agencies — such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Labor — their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes. These elevate the Court above Congress and the agencies as the nation’s primary policy maker.
“These cases, taken together, strike at the heart of American democracy,” wrote Pema Levy in Mother Jones, a nonprofit American magazine. “They threaten to institute a topsy-turvy Constitution in which its post-Civil War amendments protect an insurrectionist but allow states to dismantle the rights of women and minorities, while the president grows more king-like and judges snatch critical decisions from the elected branches. It doesn’t resemble what the framers intended—nor is it the basis for a democratic future.”
The Supreme Court justices have basically decreed that there are only two power centers under their version of the Constitution: a president with nearly unchecked powers to act as he wishes and a Supreme Court to rubber stamp his actions.
As this pattern of anti-democratic and seemingly politically motivated decision-making becomes harder to ignore, the need to speak out becomes more apparent. The Court as an institution, established in 1789, must stay true to its mission as a guardian of constitutional principles.
However, given the largely compliant nature of the Republican-controlled Congress with respect to Trump’s unconstitutional and anti-democratic power grabs, the stability of American democracy depends more than it should on the Supreme Court. So far, it is failing to live up to its constitutional duty.
Dr. William Kolbe, an Andover resident, is a retired high school and college teacher and former Peace Corps volunteer in Tonga and El Salvador. He can be reached at bila.kolbe9@gmail.com.