Washington— After the Supreme Court’s conclusion on a key term earlier this month, progressive groups poured in millions of dollars in attacks that sought to make the nation’s highest court a galvanizing issue for voters in November.
The campaign highlighted recent court rulings on presidential immunity, the agency’s regulatory powers and weapons, as well as the prospect that if elected to a second term, former President Donald Trump could appoint new, young justices who will sit on the Supreme Court for decades. arrive.
By focusing on educating voters about the next president’s influence on the high court, progressives hope to sway them to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, President Biden, instead. between concerns from party members through him fitness for the second term after a poor performance in a debate against Trump last month.
“In the same way that people on the right became Supreme Court voters because they focused on the freedoms that the Supreme Court wanted to take away from us, we motivated people who care about protecting our freedoms to become Supreme Court voters and make sure Trump can’t elect judges another in this court,” said Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America.
Two years after Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, Stand Up America rolled out a seven-figure campaign highlighting the court and the potential stamp of the next president. Called “Supreme Court Voters,” the initiative warns of the influence of the conservative majority in future cases involving abortion, gun laws and voting rights.
United for Democracy, a coalition of 140 advocacy groups, launched its own $10 million campaign in May aimed at drawing a line between the Supreme Court and Trump, who appointed three of the six conservative justices. Called “Stop the Relentless Power Grab,” the initiative is an agreement to the court’s decision this term in a pair of cases – called Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce – that reduce the power of federal agencies to interpret and fill gaps in laws enacted by Congress.
In addition to the ruling, the court also struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks installed on semi-automatic rifles, narrowed the federal obstacle law used to charge hundreds of January 6 defendants and Trump, and found that a the former president is immune from federal prosecutors for official actions taken while in the White House. The immunity decision affects special counsel Jack Smith case against Trumpwho pleaded not guilty to four counts stemming from the alleged plan to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 elections.
But the court also rejected a challenge from anti-abortion doctors who want to make the widely used abortion pill more difficult to obtain, cleared the road for Idaho doctors perform emergency abortions in certain situations and uphold federal law prohibiting alleged domestic abusers from owning guns.
Democratic criticism of the Supreme Court increased after the conservative majority liberating the constitutional right to abortion two years ago, the possible outcome of three Trump appointments to the Supreme Court. The final choice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, took her to sit on the high court day before the 2020 election following the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020.
But Trump’s own ascension to the White House in 2016 was driven in part by voters who care about Supreme Court appointments, an issue that has become increasingly important after the unexpected death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Of voters who said the Supreme Court nominee was the most important factor when considering who to support in the 2016 race, 56% voted for Trump, according to the poll. Additionally, 26% of Trump voters said the appointment was the most important factor to them.
As the vacancy created by Scalia’s death drove conservative voters to support Trump in 2016, progressives hope that the prospect of an open seat in the next four years will drive voters to support Mr. Biden in November.
“It’s no secret that progressives are a long way off” in educating voters about the judiciary, said Stasha Rhodes, campaign director for United for Democracy. “But we see an opportunity in the next few months to turn this around.”
Three of the justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor, are in their 70s, and Chief Justice John Roberts is 69. If Trump wins, Thomas, the longest serving of the current justices, and Alito can resign, allow it. Republican president to choose a successor who will be younger and therefore poised to serve for decades. The three Trump appointees, Judges Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett, are all in their 50s. It is unlikely that Thomas or Alito will retire if Mr. Biden is re-elected in November.
Mr. Biden himself has warned that the next president could nominate two justices to the Supreme Court, and former President Barack Obama said during a joint fundraiser with the president last month that the current landscape is a byproduct of the 2016 election.
“We’ve learned our lesson because this election is so important,” Obama said. “And we see how important it is to the Supreme Court.”
Liberal commentators have suggested Sotomayor should retire this year, with Mr Biden still in the White House and Democrats in control of the Senate. But the idea has yet to gain traction with Senate Democrats.
Still, Harvey points to the coalition’s efforts not only to help Democrats capture the White House, but also to control the Senate and flip the House, which is currently controlled by Republicans. Total control by Democrats could clear the way for Congress to enact judicial reform legislation, including a bill imposing term limits on current and future judges, he said.
Under the plan, called the Supreme Court Term Act, the president would name a justice every two years, and current members would take senior status, a form of semi-retirement, in order of tenure as new justices were appointed. . If passed by the Democratic-led Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, the legislation would require Thomas, who was appointed in 1991, to resign first, followed by Roberts, who did so in 2005.
In that scenario, control of the court would change from a 6-3 conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal majority within a few years.
“We want to make sure that the American people understand their power and that their elected representatives must check extreme movements in the courts. The Constitution of the United States provides Congress with the power to fix this problem, said Skye Perryman, senior counsel. for Demand Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group “Sometimes what is lost and the courts seem like an immovable and dead-cast entity and there’s nothing the American people can do about it, but our Constitution provides a tool for the American people. make their voices heard and tell parliamentarians to reform.”
Demand for Justice, which is one of the most vocal groups advocating for Supreme Court reform, plans to spend $10 million this year on efforts to target the high court. As part of the attack, it will launch a $2 million campaign focused on mothers that aims to educate them about the courts and the consequences of their decisions for women and families.
“This is a critical moment when people understand and pay attention to what’s going on in court,” Perryman said.
Separately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have attacked the Supreme Court and its conservative members, especially Thomas and Alito, for their ties to wealthy Republican donors.
Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden urged Attorney General Merrick Garland last week to appoint a special counsel to investigate Thomas, who has faced scrutiny through travel received from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow.
And on Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York introduce articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito, escalating disagreement Democrats of the high court and its conservative members.
It is unlikely that the GOP-led House will act on the article, and Republican lawmakers have criticized the Democrats’ action as an attempt to undermine the court’s legitimacy in response to rulings on political issues they disagree with.