Supreme Court Is Becoming More Powerful 

( )- The contemporary Supreme Court has declared itself to be the highest and most authoritative arm of government, above the legislative and executive branches.  

In an article published in November, Mark A. Lemley called the Court an “imperial” institution that is “radically reshaping” American law in several areas. The constitutional order has been thrown into disarray, and there is little hope of restoring it. The “conservative” side of the Supreme Court poses a threat because of its stated dedication to textualism and originalism, which are approaches to constitutional interpretation that, in theory, should limit judges’ discretion to the “plain” language of the text. 

However, Justices Alito and Thomas cherry-picked bits of history that supported one outcome while rejecting others in both Dobbs and the controversial Second Amendment decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, without providing any guiding principle for determining which “originalist” evidence is worthy of deference and which is not.  

The evidence points to the judges’ purported allegiance to a higher judicial philosophy being a front for ideology. It was shocking not only because it undermined a fundamental privilege on which many people relied but also because it was a slap to the importance of court precedent and not its adherence to constitutional principles or judicial precedent. 

Because Congress established the jurisdiction of the subordinate federal courts and delimited the extent of the judicial branch, the justices’ usurpation has spread to their Article III colleagues on the bench. In order to fully flesh out any concerns, the Supreme Court’s deliberative process includes extensive briefing by various parties, including amici curiae, and oral argument.  

The contemporary Court has issued more “emergency” orders than ordinary decisions, skipping its own thorough briefing and debate at an unparalleled rate. The court’s refusal to stay Texas’ six-week abortion ban on an emergency application, the court’s striking down of New York’s restrictions on occupancy for religious institutions, the court’s blocking of Biden’s moratorium on landlord evictions, and the court’s restoring of a policy from the Trump era that makes it harder for states to block projects that could cause pollution in its waters all have enormous substantive implications. 

This provides the Court greater leeway in determining what constitutes national policy, how policy is created in the future, and who gets to make the final call. 

This is not how the system is meant to operate, and it poses a serious risk.