The Justices have lost the people
Editor’s Note: The Views expressed in this article are those of the author.
The court has been gambling with losing its confidence. Now it seems like the odds are running out.
America is a nation of laws. Yet today, many Americans question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Confidence in the most powerful justices in the land has eroded. Although this is a consistent phenomenon across institutions in the United States, the court has historically been immune to public criticisms, with few exceptions.
Twenty-five years ago, Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, marked a turning point in the court’s public image. This term, the Supreme Court risks destroying what remains of its legitimacy.
With the new Supreme Court term underway, the justices are prepared for another chaotic term. The cases range from the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive orders to states barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, and to disputes over the Voting Rights Act. Each of these cases and others poses a landmine of choices that thread the line between institutional survival and political pressure.
A Court of its Own Making
The current legitimacy crisis that looms over the Supreme Court is not a matter of partisan spin; it is largely of its own making. Over the last several years, the conservative majority has swung the pendulum of American law sharply to the right. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, the court eliminated a 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion. The court only decided to hear the case after the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the appointment of then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
In Trump v. United States, the justices granted sitting and former presidents broad immunity for “official acts,” without clear guidelines for what constitutes an “official,” effectively giving presidents a get-out-of-jail-free card. Further puzzling the general public was the court’s delay in deciding the case. The court decided to wait until July 1, 2024; normally, the court will hand down its rulings by the end of June. With the timing of this decision, the court appeared to favor then-candidate Trump and provided him a good legal argument to stay out of prison.
In 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court overturned a century-old New York gun law. The court introduced a sweeping new “history and tradition” test that ties modern gun regulations to 18th-century norms. The decision, celebrated by Republican politicians and gun-rights groups, not only contradicted the court’s usual deference to states’ rights but also appeared as part of a coordinated ideological project. In substance and optics, Bruen blurred the line between legal reasoning and political agenda. Each of these decisions reinforced the perception of this court being driven by pure politics.
Executive Branch Standoff?
This trend extends to the executive branch. Power and control have defined the second Trump administration. In case after case so far, the court has shown itself willing to defer. There’s no clearer instance of this than a recent emergency ruling, where the court kept in place a lower court order that gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents a green light to racially profile people during immigration sweeps in Los Angeles, in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo.
That deference may soon be tested again. In April, the president imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from both allies and foes. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the executive branch power to levy economic sanctions on countries in an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy or the economy. The act never mentions the word tariff once. The Trump administration has clearly shown an appetite to use any levers of government to enact its agenda both domestically and internationally. Never in the history of the act has a president used it to impose penalties on every country in the world without sufficient justification. But various factors suggest that this court’s conservative majority will be reluctant to second-guess the administration’s reading of this act.
Yet, the deeper question at issue is present in the immunity and immigration case: Will the court continue to broaden presidential power, further eroding the checks and balances?
The Culture War Cases
These issues tend to be very complex for the court to decide, touching on contradictory legal theories – free speech, religious liberty, equal protection and Title IX. What is new in legal doctrine is not new in American life. Acceptance among those choosing to transition has grown steadily, particularly among younger Americans. A 2024 Gallup survey found that over half of adults under 30 believe changing one’s gender is morally acceptable—roughly double the rate among older generations. Nearly 40% of young people say they personally know someone who is transgender or nonbinary, compared with less than a quarter of adults over 50. Yet even as social understanding broadens, the court’s conservative majority appears increasingly willing to narrow legal protections.
Last year, in United States v. Skrmetti, the justices upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The court’s growing appetite for “culture war” cases, taking up issues like abortion, affirmative action and transgender rights. This shift away from judicial restraint signals a willingness to engage in ideological battles, often against the tide of public opinion. Doing so risks alienating the young generation, who view these rights as a matter of fairness, not political expediency.
Voting Rights and Democracy
As a person of color, voting rights are an issue very close to home. It is important within a constitutional republic for the citizenry to have a chance to participate. The court will confront who gets to participate once again in this term in Louisiana v. Callais. On the Voting Rights Act’s 60th anniversary, its protections remain under siege.
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has already diminished many protections within the Voting Rights Act. This has long been a dream for many right-wing litigators and politicians alike. Cases like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC weakened the oversight of discriminatory map practices, and Callais could go even further.
At the same time, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court will determine campaign finance regulations, possibly giving corporations more power over elections.
The Court’s readiness to favor entrenched political and financial power over ordinary voters suggests a troubling sign: a judiciary increasingly comfortable with narrowing the franchise and amplifying the moneyed influence.
Young Americans are seeing this and are appalled. In Harvard’s 2025 Youth Poll, fewer than one in three young people said they trust the Supreme Court, and majorities of Gen Z voters cite voting access and money in politics as top threats to democracy. If the court upholds Louisiana’s gerrymandered maps, while favoring the interest of corporations in the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC case, the court risks losing what little public trust is left in free and fair elections, particularly among young Americans who are soon to define the future of American democracy.
The Stakes
The real question is whether the justices will heed these warning signs before it’s too late. If public trust continues to erode and the court’s legitimacy collapses, the consequences could be profound. American history offers glimpses of what that might look like. In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, reportedly quipping, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The result was the forced removal of Native American tribes in defiance of the court’s judgment. But this danger doesn’t simply come from presidents ignoring the court, but the public, too.
More recently, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, some Southern states resisted desegregation for years. In parts of the South, mobs blocked schoolhouses and local officials ignored federal orders. When people stop believing the court stands for justice, its decisions lose moral long before they lose legal effect.
If today’s justices continue down a partisan path and further detach from public values, the same fate could await this court’s rulings. Citizens will turn their backs on its rulings. And once the public sees the court as a legitimate arbiter of right and wrong, power dissolves. Without public legitimacy, the court cannot compel, and it can only hope to persuade. And once that hope is lost, so too is the foundation of its power.