The Supreme Court That Won’t Look
In decision after decision, the conservative justices are ignoring facts that the lower courts have worked hard to establish.
The Roberts Court is failing to fulfill its crucial role as a truth-teller, as evident in the Trump v. California case on Monday. The conservative justices allowed the Trump administration to implement a plan to restrict mail-in voting, lifting an injunction against the executive order the president signed. This decision raises concerns about chaos in the upcoming midterm elections, emboldening those seeking to undermine democratic institutions, and undermining the Court's relationship with facts.
The case emerged from Trump's persistent conspiracy theory about widespread voter fraud and the ease of mail-in voting. The administration's order aimed to address this alleged issue by targeting three specific concerns. However, 23 states, including the District of Columbia, challenged three parts of the order, arguing that it violated constitutional principles and practical concerns regarding compliance.
In June, Judge Indira Talwani of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts temporarily blocked parts of the order and provided a detailed evidentiary analysis, examining how the order affected election officials and ballot designs. The federal appeals court endorsed her factual analysis, and the Trump administration sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court, which the conservative justices granted.
Judge Talwani's injunction was lifted, but the majority opinion in the majority's decision failed to address the facts presented by the district court. Instead, it focused on abstract concepts like "institutional injury" and "reasonable policies," ignoring the tangible consequences and burdens on election officials. The decision has far-reaching implications, including the erosion of constitutional structure, signaling the adequacy of the Court's endorsement of executive encroachment, and deepening the Court's incoherent election-law jurisprudence to serve Republican interests.
The majority's decision not only damages the states but also undermines public trust in the Court and shifts the burden of implementation and uncertainties onto election officials and voters.
Written by urgent.news from The Atlantic's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
