We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June
In June, the US Supreme Court will begin issuing decisions on cases involving everything from reproductive rights to gun ownership to homeless encampments to former president Donald Trump’s criminal cases. Yale Law School Lecturer and staff writer at the New York Times Magazine Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack some of the biggest cases on the docket this year and what’s at stake in some of the major decisions expected to come down next month.
This year’s SCOTUS term comes at a time when approval for the Court is at an all-time low. As of September of 2023, a record 58% of Americans disapproved of how the Court handles its job. That follows multiple ethics scandals involving Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of conservative decisions, including the 2022 Dobbs decision striking down the right to abortion, increasingly out of step with public opinion. With the Court wading into the 2024 election and former President Trump’s immunity claims, it risks being seen by the public as even more partisan and politicized.
“As an American, I want to have a good faith belief in the justices’ approach,” Bazelon says, “After a certain number of cases come out in particular ways, you start to feel like cynicism is realism about the Court."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Ian Explains: Does it matter if Americans don't trust the Supreme Court?
Public approval for the US Supreme Court is at an all-time low. But how much does that matter really? On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down why voters believe the Court has become more partisan and politically motivated in recent years and whether public perception makes any difference in how it operates.
According to Gallup polling, SCOTUS has had a strong net approval rating, much higher than the President and Congress, for most of the last 25 years. But as of September 2023, 58% of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court, a record high. The Court’s credibility has come under fire following ethics scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of 6-3 conservative majority opinions, like the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, increasingly out of step with public opinion.
It’s a class question of separation of powers: The justices aren’t elected, and the judicial branch of government isn’t designed to respond to popular will. But if SCOTUS falls out of step with voters completely, it risks losing the very thing that gives it legitimacy: public faith.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- SCOTUS adopts new ethics code as public trust plummets ›
- Who cares if the Supreme Court justices like each other? ›
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions ›
- Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court ›
- The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June - GZERO Media ›
Who cares if the Supreme Court justices like each other?
Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon wants to have faith in the Supreme Court. "I want to have a good faith belief in the justices' approach to these cases” she tells Ian Bremmer in a new episode of GZERO World. But in a wide-ranging conversation in which Bazelon and Bremmer preview the major cases facing the Supreme Court this spring, Bazelon confesses that the past few years have tested her faith.
“After a certain number of cases come out particular ways, you start to feel like cynicism is realism about the Court."
And Bazelon is not alone. Public faith in the Supreme Court is at record lows, thanks to its rightward tilt and ethical questions surrounding the conduct of Justice Clarence Thomas. And that’s a problem, Bazelon says, not just for America but for the justices themselves. “They all have an incentive to protect the institution, the liberals as well as the conservatives. They don't want to see Americans lose total faith in the Court. That's not good for them and their job security and their collective legacy.”
But do the justices themselves get along? Bazelon couldn’t care less. “I'm personally mystified why they think we should care about that. I don't care whether they can be nice to each other when they're having lunch, whether they're collegial. I care about whether American law is going in a direction that makes sense to most Americans.” But at a time when the country itself could not be more divided, could collegiality in the highest court of the land be just the thing that Americans cling to?
Watch the full interview with Emily Bazelon on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television beginning this Friday, May 3. Check local listings.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions ›
- Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court ›
- US Supreme Court upends Roe v. Wade ›
- Ian Explains: Does it matter if Americans don't trust the Supreme Court? - GZERO Media ›
- The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June - GZERO Media ›
- The US Supreme Court, less trusted than ever, votes on major cases in June: Emily Bazelon on what to expect - GZERO Media ›
Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed, but GOP will dominate SCOTUS for years
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses the Supreme Court confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Today's question, what does the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson mean for the US?
She'll be the first black woman ever to serve on the highest court. What's the political significance of this? Not much. After Republicans took at 6-3 advantage on the court during the Trump administration, the conservatives now have what looks like a durable majority that will dominate the court for years to come. Brown Jackson's vote is unlikely to be decisive in many cases, which frequently split along partisan lines with the six conservative justices aligning in a block against the three liberal justices on issues like separation of powers, the scope of the federal government, and voting rights.
So the real story at the courts is what direction those six justices are likely to push the court in, and several big cases are likely to come this year that will question or challenge long-standing precedents of the court. The biggest is the potential decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which is a case that could potentially overturn the 40-year-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade that prevents states from banning abortion. Nonetheless, several states have banned abortion over the last several years, some in preparation for a decision in Dobbs and some because they wanted to force the issue and put it in front of the newly conservative Supreme Court. This is likely to be the blockbuster case on the court's docket with massive political implications in the US, and will be the culmination of effort by a generation of conservative activists to overturn what they see as the canonical example of judicial overreach.
But there are several other longstanding precedents the conservative court may challenge, including on affirmative action in college admissions, gun rights, public support for religious schools. And perhaps most significantly for the economy, the court could rule in a case challenging the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions, which could set a new precedent that would further limit the executive branch from pushing major new regulations that are not explicitly authorized by Congress. This would be a huge rollback of the US administrative state and could affect everything from environmental regulation to financial regulation.
So the Brown Jackson confirmation represents a near-term win for the Democratic Party that's only a minor part of a series of long term losses for the Democratic Party who are unlikely to be able to move the balance of power back in their favor on the court, at least until the next time they control the White House and the Senate, and have two openings on the court from either conservative justices passing away or retiring. This could be in 2028 or even later, depending on what happens in the 2024 presidential election.
SCOTUS confirmation hearings no longer serve a purpose
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses the Supreme Court hearings.
Today's question. Have the Supreme Court hearings lost their purpose?
Blanketing cable news this week are the Senate Judiciary hearings to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Brown Jackson surpasses anyone's standard of a qualified Supreme Court justice. She's educated at the best law schools. She's been a Supreme Court clerk, a public defender, a trial court judge, and a circuit court judge. She's at least as qualified as anybody else serving on the court today. And nobody questions that she has a top notch intellect and character to sit on the Court.
So the questions she's facing this week at the hearing aren't about her qualifications. They are at best about her ideology, and at worst about things that have nothing to do with her, like culture war battles over the definition of a woman. And like every recent Supreme Court nominee, she's learned to be very careful and circumspect in describing her ideology so she doesn't give the other side anything to use against her.
So that raises a question. What's the point of having these hearings? Nearly every Democrat has already pre-committed to voting for her. And though they won't say it, nearly every Republican has already pre-committed to voting against her. There's no upside for members of either party in not voting with the team on this issue.
The hearings are generating little heat and even less light, because the Democrats basically have to support President Biden's pick. They're left to give fawning softballs that give the judge a chance to repeatedly emphasize her qualifications. And the Republicans are essentially showboating, hoping to create tweet worthy clips to justify their no votes in the proper partisan frame. Before Republicans changed the rules in 2017 to allow the Supreme Court justices to be confirmed on simple party line, majority votes, the opposition party would use the nomination hearings to ask tough questions, but at least some of them were looking for excuses to vote for a judge, since at least some of the minority party would be needed to confirm a judge. Indeed, all of President Obama and President Bush's appointees received bipartisan votes, and in the Clinton administration, the Supreme Court votes were nearly unanimous.
But since that time, the nomination process and the hearings have turned into purely partisan affairs. The three judges nominated by President Trump received only four Democratic votes, and it's unlikely that Brown Jackson received that many votes from Republicans. You could argue that there was something unique about each of the Trump justices, but the only thing unique about Brown Jackson is that she's clearly deserving of the job, but she will struggle to find a single Republican willing to say it.
So the hearings today served no purpose and could very well do harm in that they explicitly drag justices into these bitter partisan battles and help erode the neutrality of the courts, or at least the perception of the neutrality of the courts. Judges now are frequently framed as partisan ideologues who are committed to one political party or another, something that Justice John Roberts said he explicitly wanted to avoid. And that will have consequences for years to come, if the courts are asked to rule on voting rules or are asked to weigh in on contested elections in the coming years.
- The history of Black women judges in America - GZERO Media ›
- Biden's SCOTUS pick to replace Breyer must appeal to Senate ... ›
- Biden's promise to name a Black woman to SCOTUS isn't ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: SCOTUS vacancies in presidential election years ... ›
- Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed, but GOP will dominate SCOTUS for years - GZERO Media ›