The Court’s Shadow: A Chilling Display of Partisanship

The Supreme Court has long been regarded as a bastion of impartiality, a guardian against the whims of politics, and a champion of constitutional principles. However, in recent years, a disturbing trend has emerged: conservative justices disregarding facts and indulging in partisan fantasies.

One notable example is the court’s decision in Trump v. California, where the Roberts Court abdicated its role as truth-teller and enabled President Trump’s attempt to restrict voting by mail. The ruling has far-reaching implications for American democracy, injecting chaos into the midterm elections and emboldening those who seek to undermine democratic institutions.

At its core, this decision stems from Trump’s long-standing conspiracy theory that American elections are plagued by widespread voter fraud, which voting by mail supposedly facilitates. Twenty-three states sued, arguing that the executive order violated constitutional principles and imposed undue burdens on election officials. In June, Judge Indira Talwani of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts issued a narrow block on parts of the order, undertaking a meticulous analysis of the impact of the executive order on election officials’ work assignments and ballot designs.

The federal appeals court endorsed her factual analysis, but the Supreme Court’s conservative justices overturned it without addressing the undisputed facts. The majority’s opinion was characterized by abstraction, portraying Trump as an ordinary president pursuing reasonable policies regarding election integrity and Judge Talwani as an overzealous judge frustrating the president’s policy goals. However, this rhetoric is contradicted by the record, which shows that Trump’s order had already placed a significant strain on officials who must navigate compressed timelines and limited resources in a tense political climate.

This decision is part of a larger pattern of behavior from the Roberts Court, which has consistently demonstrated a willingness to disregard facts and indulge in partisan fantasies. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent, the record established that Trump’s order had already imposed significant burdens on election officials, yet the court chose to ignore these facts.

This approach predates Trump 2.0 but has been particularly pronounced in the second term of the Roberts Court. The shadow docket has become a haven for partisan judges who seek to reinstate Trump’s policies without regard for the facts or the law. Last fall’s decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo was another example of this trend, where the court reinstated a Trump policy without considering the factual record.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and disturbing. It emboldens those who seek to undermine democratic institutions, injects chaos into the midterm elections, and undermines public trust in the Court. The damage is not limited to the immediate; it also tangles the Court’s election-law jurisprudence, creating a doctrine that is incoherent but reliable in outcome.

As we watch this drama unfold, one question looms large: what does this say about the health of American democracy? Is the Supreme Court willing to become a partisan tool, disregarding facts and indulging in fantasies to serve a narrow agenda? The answer is unsettling.