The Looming Influence of State Supreme Courts

The Looming Influence of State Supreme Courts

The Looming Influence of State Supreme Courts

Their authority over public policy has been increasing for decades.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

While all eyes are on the confirmation hearings for President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, 86 state supreme court battles are quietly brewing across the country. These races rarely receive coverage on cable news, but they could have an even greater impact on Americans’ lives—and on the future of our democracy.

For decades, the Supreme Court has gradually outsourced responsibilities to lower courts—giving state supreme courts increasing authority over public policy. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court regularly decided more than 150 cases per term. In its last full term, it heard just 62 cases. Worse, a 2014 Reuters investigation found that cases are increasingly heard from a select group of lawyers—most of whom “worked for law firms that primarily represented corporate interests.”

And even among the dwindling cases the Supreme Court is hearing, it has frequently limited the scope of its authority, particularly over voting rights. Take the 2019 partisan gerrymandering case, where the court’s conservative majority threw its hands in the air and claimed the case was beyond its purview—leaving state courts as the primary judicial battleground for gerrymandering disputes. Similarly, in a 2018 gay rights case and a 2021 case on Texas’s restrictive abortion law, the court ruled that it could not issue a judgment on key legal questions, leaving them to be adjudicated back in state courts. (It just so happens that this particular interpretation of judicial authority mostly benefited Republicans.)

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x