When the Supreme Court Lost Its Role as Democracy’s Backstop
A panel of experts pinpointed the moments they realized the Court could no longer be trusted to protect constitutional rights.
The panel’s “wake‑up” moments
Wow—the conversation kicked off with host Dahlia Lithwick asking three leaders when they first saw the Supreme Court stop acting as a constitutional backstop.
Stacey Abrams framed her answer around the concept of DEI, describing it as the container for the rights and protections that grant full citizenship. She traced the first major assault on that container to a 2013 decision that weakened voting‑rights protections, followed by challenges to education and reproductive autonomy.
Daphna Renan recalled the early days of the Obama administration. As a junior Justice Department lawyer, she watched a massive health‑care reform effort evaporate under the looming threat of a handful of justices deciding its fate, while the Court simultaneously advanced a theory that could let the president ignore federal law.
Ilyse Hogue marked the period between July and October 2018, when the nation mobilized against a Supreme Court nomination, as her point of no return. She noted the absence of any high‑level official defending the Court’s role as a public safeguard, which shattered her trust in democratic institutions.
What the public is feeling
Hogue spent the past year traveling across the country, hearing from “double‑haters”—people who dislike both major parties and lack faith in institutions. Yet she emphasized that many still cling to core constitutional principles such as separation of powers and equality.
Ideas for reform
When listener Andrew asked about expanding the Court, Hogue responded with a “yes/and,” saying reform is needed but must be paired with public education to make changes less intimidating.
Abrams shifted focus to the district‑court level, noting that in the South the capture of courts occurs well below the Supreme Court, and that the federal bench has not been updated to reflect the nation’s current demographics.
Why this matters now
The panel’s insights reveal a growing consensus that the Supreme Court is no longer the reliable guardian of democracy it once was, and that meaningful reform will require both structural changes and a better‑informed public.
