Recent reporting reveals Chief Justice John Roberts has entirely thrown off the veneer of being willing to moderate extremists on the Supreme Court. His opinions in multiple cases related to the January 6 insurrection have been alarming, and he’s refused to push two ethically conflicted justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — to recuse themselves from cases.

And by granting presidents nearly unfettered immunity to commit crimes, he has turned his back on the foundational American principle that no one is above the law. His unmasking takes with it any realistic hope that the Supreme Court will move to the center this new term instead of continuing to advance a right-wing political agenda.

The court has already sided with right-wing litigants to scuttle the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts at relieving student debt and providing protections for transgender students facing discrimination. And there are several cases before the court in which they will likely continue to side with powerful special interest groups and corporations to the detriment of everyday Americans. We already see it happen in the court’s “shadow” docket.

For example, the same anti-abortion justices who overturned Roe v. Wade recently denied an emergency motion — in a 6-3 vote — to stay the execution of a Missouri man, Marcellus Williams. The state prosecutors argued that Williams had been wrongfully convicted, and even the victim’s family agreed he should have been given a life sentence. We can expect the justices to behave similarly in a coming death penalty case in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court is requiring an execution to proceed over wrongful conviction protests from the state’s attorney general.

Perhaps the most troubling shadow docket case illustrating the court’s continued lurch to the right is Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota. In RNC, five justices allowed a 2022 Arizona voter suppression law provision to go into effect, making it harder to register to vote in the state. The limited decision goes against the court’s rule against changing voting laws directly ahead of elections. As a result, multiple voting-related cases will make their way to the Supreme Court — which has already shown hostility toward voting rights — even as the 2024 presidential election comes into focus.

Several other pending cases before the court could further undermine Americans’ health, safety and rights. For example, one case challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ rule barring the sale and distribution of “ghost guns” without a background check. The court could also hear a Texas case in which the judge who attempted to ban medication abortion also stopped enforcement of a law requiring background checks for firearms purchases.

The Roberts Court has been one of the most pro-corporate— and anti-worker — courts in history and could further roll back important labor protections for America’s working class. One case, for example, could limit the federal guarantee of overtime wages, which would pave the way for Project 2025 to let employers ignore those protections entirely. Oral argument will likely signal the court’s position in other pending cases, including a challenge to the Biden-Harris labor rule expanding overtime protections to 4 million Americans and a separate rule — already enjoined by a Texas judge— prohibiting the use of anti-competitive non-compete employment contracts.

These cases provide only a tiny preview of the harm a brazen Supreme Court run amok could inflict upon our nation this coming term. The American people should demand that Congress implement 18-year term limits on these justices in addition to an enforceable code of conduct that will hold them accountable to more than their billionaire benefactors and the right-wing legal movement.

Transparency and accountability are essential to ensure the court rededicates itself to advancing the rule of law with reason rather than accruing power for itself and its far-right benefactors.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Devon Ombres is the senior director for Courts and Legal Policy at the Center for American Progress. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC