Trump’s judiciary is undermining the foundations of American democracy

By James J. Devine

It is easy to see the harmful influence of disgraced former President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments, whether in a dramatic reversal of human rights secured by the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that protected the right to privacy and its assurance that women had a right to choose abortion for 50 years, or in the stunning delay of the 2020 election loser’s criminal trial for stealing top secret government documents.

However, the federal judiciary has executed a series of controversial decisions since Trump stacked the Supreme Court and filled many lower courts with ideological extremists who have no respect for the legal principle of determining litigation according to precedent, marking a shift in legal landscapes that are at odds with the foundational principles of American democracy.

In other words, right-wing Republicans found a way to control our democratic republic without having to bother with the necessity of winning elections or abiding by majority rule. Of course, ever since the 2000 controversy over the outcome of the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush instead of Vice President Al Gore, it has been apparent that Republicans would do anything to win, except get more votes.

A long time ago, political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page measured the amount of political influence various groups have in America and concluded that the United States is an oligarchy, a system of government where a small number of elites rule.

Since 1980, Americans have witnessed the decline of egalitarianism. The Trump era accelerated the process of vanquishing equality and undermining democracy. Nine cases stand out as particularly contentious and illustrative of this corrupt transformation of the United States into an autocracy.

1. Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Public Policy Panel: This case involved challenges to voting rights laws, particularly provisions related to private parties’ ability to enforce voting rights. The court’s decision, narrowing the scope of private suits under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, raised concerns about the law’s effectiveness in protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression efforts. No court had ever denied private actors’ ability to bring their claims in federal court — with the sole exception of this case.
2. Trump v. United States: This case revolved around former President Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office. The court’s rulings, including delays in Trump’s criminal trial and favorable decisions for the defense, sparked debates about judicial impartiality and the potential influence of political considerations on legal proceedings. While it is ludicrous to assert that the president is ‘above the law’ this case is making it impossible to prosecute a criminal who once occupied the White House because Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon postponed the trial that was scheduled to start May 20 and the Republican could win the 2024 election even if a large majority of American voters cast ballots against him.
3. Doe v. Mckesson: This case challenges the right to free speech and assembly. A lower court’s decision to hold protest organizers responsible for individual participants’ actions raised concerns about chilling effects on political activism and the ability to organize peaceful protests. The Supreme Court in 1982 held that while the Constitution does not protect violence, it does limit the government’s ability to place responsibility for the violence of one person onto other peaceful protesters. This case could dismantle that civil rights-era precedent.
4. Community Financial Services Association v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: This case questioned federal agencies’ constitutionality and their funding mechanisms, with implications for regulatory oversight and economic policies. The court’s decision raised concerns about the potential to disrupt government functions and regulatory frameworks.
5. New York State Rifle v. Bruen: A Second Amendment case challenging gun control laws, this case highlighted debates over constitutional interpretation and individual rights versus public safety interests. The court’s approach to interpreting the Second Amendment raised questions about legal standards and the judiciary’s role in shaping firearms regulations. In a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down New York’s century-old public carry licensing law and announced a radical new framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.
6. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA: A Texas judge’s attempt to ban the abortion drug mifepristone raised broader questions about judicial activism and its impact on healthcare policies. The case highlighted partisan divisions in judicial interpretations of reproductive rights and the role of federal agencies in regulating healthcare. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case on March 26, 2024. A ruling is expected sometime in June or July. Medication is the most commonly used method of abortion in the United States, helping more than half of all women terminate unwanted pregnancies.  Since its approval, the drug has established a well-documented safety record, as demonstrated by its real-world use by more than five million people as well as hundreds of additional high-quality studies. 
7. Biden v. Nebraska: The court’s ruling against the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program highlighted debates over executive authority and separation of powers. The decision underscored tensions between judicial review and legislative intent, with implications for government policymaking and regulatory actions.
8. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson: This case stemmed from Texas’s SB 8 law, which allowed private individuals to sue abortion providers, circumventing traditional enforcement by state authorities. The law’s mechanism created legal barriers for abortion providers and individuals seeking abortions, effectively banning most abortions in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s decision not to block this law pending litigation marked a departure from established abortion jurisprudence, raising concerns about constitutional rights and access to reproductive healthcare.
9. United States v. Texas: This case delved into questions of federalism and law enforcement powers, particularly regarding immigration policies and enforcement priorities. The court’s decision raised concerns about judicial overreach and its impact on executive branch prerogatives in setting law enforcement agendas.

These decisions collectively reflect a judiciary that’s becoming more active and assertive, sometimes at the expense of democratic processes and the balance of power among branches of government.

They also reflect broader shifts in the federal judiciary towards more partisan and ideologically driven decision-making, raising concerns about the future of constitutional principles and the rule of law.

While some of these decisions may be reversed or tempered, they underscore the ongoing debates about the role of the judiciary in shaping American governance and rights.

In cases like Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and Biden v. Nebraska, the judiciary appears to reinterpret legislative intent or apply new legal doctrines, potentially undermining the democratic process where elected representatives create laws reflecting public will.

Decisions such as Doe v. Mckesson and Trump v. United States showcase the judiciary expanding its authority beyond traditional legal interpretations, delving into areas like free speech protections and executive branch oversight.

Cases like Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Public Policy Panel and Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA reveal partisan divides within the judiciary, with decisions often reflecting ideological leanings that may diverge from democratic principles of neutrality and fairness.

The outcomes of these cases, especially when they strike down or uphold government actions, can have significant policy implications. For instance, the Texas abortion law case (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson) effectively circumvented Roe v. Wade, impacting reproductive rights policy nationally.

Cases like United States v. Texas and Biden v. Nebraska challenge executive authority and the ability of government agencies to implement policies, potentially weakening the executive branch’s effectiveness and responsiveness to public needs.

The rulings in cases like New York State Rifle v. Bruen and Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA can be seen as examples of judicial activism, where courts take a proactive role in shaping policy rather than deferring to elected branches of government.

Overall, these decisions collectively suggest a judiciary that’s increasingly willing to assert its power, shape public policy, and interpret constitutional rights in ways that can significantly impact governance in direct contradiction of democratic principles.