In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been observed to exercise power beyond the bounds of its constitutional mandate, a pattern emerging through its involvement in significant yet selectively reported cases. The Court’s approach, especially in election-related matters, often sidelines established laws and norms. While elections are predominantly state-operated, with the people casting their votes, the Supreme Court has intervened in ongoing elections regularly, contradicting its own established rules as seen in Purcell v. Gonzalez.
Instances in North Carolina and Texas elections illustrate the Court’s switches between decisions without a clear answer to controversial executive orders or emerging issues. This undue influence extends beyond elections. It reaches the separation of powers, asserting influence over federal agencies and financial appropriations between the president and Congress, often contradicting itself, thus creating a system where predictability and law lose significance, with itself as the arbiter of power.
The Court’s decisions also reflect an inconsistent application of “standing” — who gets to bring cases to court. It allows certain cases to proceed on perceived economic injuries, such as Ted Cruz’s campaign finance case, but blocks others pursuing genuine claims, as evidenced in cases involving voting rights and the protection of national landmarks like the Kennedy Center, despite legal standing.
This growing self-entitlement to power, devoid of consistent standards or accountability, introduces structural challenges. Remedies proposed include implementing due process requirements for the Court’s emergency docket, codifying non-interference rules during elections, and enhancing transparency and accountability through enforceable ethics regulations affecting both the justices and those influencing the court.
Such structural reforms aim not to undermine the judicial independence or power but to restore constitutional balance. As addressed in SCOTUSblog, there’s an urgent need for measures that prevent the Supreme Court from consolidating ungranted authority, potentially reshaping constitutional boundaries beyond recognition.