• Latest
  • Trending
  • All
  • News
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Science
  • World
  • Lifestyle
  • Tech
An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars

An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars

December 19, 2022
Trump Puts His Legal Peril at Center of First Big Rally for 2024

Trump Puts His Legal Peril at Center of First Big Rally for 2024

March 25, 2023
Trump calls for “final battle in 2024” in first official campaign rally

Trump calls for “final battle in 2024” in first official campaign rally

March 25, 2023
Exclusive-Biden Nominee To Head FAA Withdraws After Republican Attacks -sources

Exclusive-Biden Nominee To Head FAA Withdraws After Republican Attacks -sources

March 25, 2023
Delta passenger detained at LAX after opening exit door, activating emergency slide minutes before takeoff

Delta passenger detained at LAX after opening exit door, activating emergency slide minutes before takeoff

March 25, 2023
Chocolate Factory Explosion in Pennsylvania Leaves Five Dead and Six Missing

Chocolate Factory Explosion Leaves at Least Three People Dead and Four Missing

March 25, 2023
Indiana teen Scottie Morris found ‘safe’ near where he vanished

Indiana teen Scottie Morris found ‘safe’ near where he vanished

March 25, 2023
Female officer says she was pressured into oral sex with coworker, cops took bets on who would have sex with her first

Female officer says she was pressured into oral sex with coworker, cops took bets on who would have sex with her first

March 25, 2023
Mitch McConnell back home after completing physical therapy for concussion

Mitch McConnell back home after completing physical therapy for concussion

March 25, 2023
Trump Will ‘Fight Like Hell’ on Possible Marjorie Taylor Greene Senate Run

Trump Will ‘Fight Like Hell’ on Possible Marjorie Taylor Greene Senate Run

March 25, 2023
Autism rates rising fastest among minority children, CDC says

Autism rates rising fastest among minority children, CDC says

March 25, 2023
German minister likened to Putin in row over heat pumps

German minister likened to Putin in row over heat pumps

March 25, 2023
In Blow to Taiwan, Honduras Switches Relations to China

In Blow to Taiwan, Honduras Switches Relations to China

March 25, 2023
DNYUZ
  • Home
  • News
    • U.S.
    • World
    • Politics
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Crime
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Science
  • Entertainment
    • Culture
    • Music
    • Movie
    • Television
    • Theater
    • Gaming
    • Sports
  • Tech
    • Apps
    • Autos
    • Gear
    • Mobile
    • Startup
  • Lifestyle
    • Arts
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Health
    • Travel
No Result
View All Result
DNYUZ
No Result
View All Result
Home News

An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars

December 19, 2022
in News
An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars
29.2k
SHARES
83.6k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

WASHINGTON — The conventional critique of the Supreme Court these days is that it has lurched to the right and is out of step with the public on many issues. That is true so far as it goes.

But a burst of recent legal scholarship makes a deeper point, saying the current court is distinctive in a different way: It has rapidly been accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.

The phenomenon was documented last month by Mark A. Lemley, a law professor at Stanford, in an article called “The Imperial Supreme Court” in The Harvard Law Review.

“The court has not been favoring one branch of government over another, or favoring states over the federal government, or the rights of people over governments,” Professor Lemley wrote. “Rather, it is withdrawing power from all of them at once.”

He added, “It is a court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”

The arguments this month over the role of state legislatures in setting rules for federal elections seemed to illustrate the point. The questioning suggested that the court was not prepared to adopt a novel legal theory that would upset the ordinary checks and balances at the state level in election litigation.

Rather, the justices seemed ready to elevate their own role in the process, giving themselves the right to do something ordinarily forbidden: second-guess state courts’ interpretations of state law.

In a similar vein, Justice Elena Kagan noted the majority’s imperial impulses in a dissent from a decision in June that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address climate change.

“The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy,” she wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

A second study, to be published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, concentrated on cases involving the executive branch and backed up Professor Lemley’s observations with data. Taking account of 3,660 decisions since 1937, the study found that the court led since 2005 by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been “uniquely willing to check executive authority.”

This trend was even more pronounced in cases discussed in law school casebooks and featured on the front page of this newspaper. The executive branch in the Roberts court era won just 35 percent of the time in those cases, a rate more than 20 percentage points lower than the historical average.

The study’s authors, Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein, both of the University of Southern California, wrote that “there is little indication that the Roberts court’s willingness to rule against the president bears any reliable relation to preserving the balance among the branches or the workings and accountability of the democratic process.”

“Instead,” they wrote, “there are increasingly frequent indications that the court is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”

Professor Brown added in an interview that the nature of the court’s reasoning has shifted.

“When the court used to rule in favor of the president, they would do so with a sort of humility,” she said. “They would say: ‘It’s not up to us to decide this. We will defer to the president. He wins.’ Now the court says, ‘The president wins because we think he’s right.’”

Nor does the Supreme Court seem to trust lower federal courts. It has, for instance, made a habit of hearing cases before federal appeals courts have ruled on them, using a procedure called “certiorari before judgment.” It used to be reserved for exceptional cases like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.

Before 2019, the court had not used the procedure for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Since then, he found, the court has used it 19 times.

The court has been using another kind of shortcut to enhance its power, as two law professors — Lisa Tucker of Drexel University and Stefanie A. Lindquist of Arizona State University — demonstrated in a recent guest essay. The court has been, they wrote, “increasingly setting aside legally significant decisions from the lower courts as if they had never happened, invalidating them in brief procedural orders.”

Yet another study, from Tejas Narechania, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, examined the cases selected by the justices for full-blown review on the merits.

“The Roberts court, more than any other court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent,” Professor Narechania found in the study, which will be published in the St. Louis University Law Journal and built on an earlier one in the Columbia Law Review.

In September, in remarks at a judicial conference, Chief Justice Roberts insisted on the court’s primacy.

“You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is,” he said, echoing Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous statement in Marbury v. Madison, the foundational 1803 decision: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is.”

The statement is popular with the current court. “Over half of the total number of majority or concurring opinions in Supreme Court history to have quoted this language from Marbury,” Professors Brown and Epstein wrote, “have been penned by the Roberts court.”

The post An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars appeared first on New York Times.

Share11698Tweet7311Share

Trending Posts

The ‘Easy Rider’ Bandit Robbed 12 Banks. Now He Reveals Why.

The ‘Easy Rider’ Bandit Robbed 12 Banks. Now He Reveals Why.

March 25, 2023
Inside Donald Glover’s Complicated History With Black Women

Inside Donald Glover’s Complicated History With Black Women

March 25, 2023
Actor Jonathan Majors arrested on domestic violence charges in New York City

Actor Jonathan Majors arrested on domestic violence charges in New York City

March 25, 2023
California sea otters killed by rare parasite that could also threaten humans

California sea otters killed by rare parasite that could also threaten humans

March 25, 2023
‘Woke’ US schools scarier than North Korea, says defector

‘Woke’ US schools scarier than North Korea, says defector

March 25, 2023

Copyright © 2023.

Site Navigation

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • U.S.
    • World
    • Politics
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Crime
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Science
  • Entertainment
    • Culture
    • Gaming
    • Music
    • Movie
    • Sports
    • Television
    • Theater
  • Tech
    • Apps
    • Autos
    • Gear
    • Mobile
    • Startup
  • Lifestyle
    • Arts
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Health
    • Travel

Copyright © 2023.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT