McLarenblog

As of August 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has a 6–3 conservative majority, with six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three appointed by Democratic presidents. The current composition is widely considered to be the most conservative-leaning court in modern history. 

The US Supreme Court is now currently criticized for a loss of public trust and perception of political motivation, with concerns about its decisions undermining democratic institutions and established precedents, particularly following the Dobbs decision on abortion rights. 

The most dramatic impact of the court’s current ideological leaning is its willingness to overturn long-standing precedents.

The Dobbs decision, is the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and allowing individual states to regulate or ban the procedure.

Criticisms also focus on the court’s potential for Power Grabs:

Examples Of Weakening Federal Agencies

US Supreme Court Exhibits Some Executive Branch Checks:

• Administrative State vs. Presidency: The Court’s actions show a contrast between strengthening the president’s personal powers (as seen in the immunity and nationwide injunction rulings) and weakening the administrative state by curtailing the power of federal agencies (Loper Bright, Jarkesy).
  https://hls.harvard.edu/today/when-a-president-takes-on-the-administrative-state/
  
• Shifting Authority: The overturning of Chevron deference transfers interpretive power from federal agencies to the judiciary. This does not necessarily weaken the executive branch as a whole but reconfigures the balance of power among the branches.
• Party Polarization: Some analyses point to high partisan polarization as a factor, where members of Congress are less likely to check a president of their own party, placing a greater burden on the courts to provide oversight.

Examples Of The Influence Of Dark Money Increasing Due To The Supreme Court.

• Impact on dark money:
  • The most significant Supreme Court decision related to the concept of “dark money” is Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which, by allowing unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions, created a loophole that ushered in the era of “dark money” by enabling groups that do not disclose their donors to spend billions influencing elections..
  • It facilitated the rise of Super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals.
  • The decision significantly expanded the use of “dark money” by allowing contributions to be funneled through certain non-profit groups (like 501(c)(4)s) that do not have to disclose their donors.
  • A 2025 Brennan Center study found that dark money spending nearly doubled between the 2020 and 2024 elections, reaching almost $2 billion in the 2024 cycle alone. 

Possible Results From The Supreme Court Decisions Upon Special interests.

3Major Supreme Court decisions regarding campaign finance and First Amendment rights have dramatically increased the influence of special interests in American politics.

#1:  Unlimited campaign spending

• Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This landmark 5–4 decision is the most significant ruling affecting special interests in recent history. The Court found that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment right as individuals to spend money on independent political expenditures.
  • Result: The ruling struck down prohibitions on corporate and union independent expenditures, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. This reversed decades of campaign finance restrictions and led to a massive increase in political spending by outside groups.
• McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): In a 5–4 decision, the Court struck down the aggregate limit on the total amount of money individuals could contribute to all federal campaigns and political committees during a two-year period.
  • Result: The decision further expanded the ability of wealthy donors and special interests to contribute to political campaigns by removing the overall cap, allowing them to donate to as many candidates and committees as they want. 

#2:  Rise of Super PACs and “dark money”

• SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): A federal appeals court, applying the logic of Citizens United, ruled that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they don’t give directly to candidates.
  • Result: This ruling authorized the creation of “Super PACs,” which can raise and spend unlimited sums of money on independent expenditures for or against candidates.
• Dark money spending: The rise of Super PACs and other spending groups, like 501(c)(4) nonprofits, has been accompanied by a significant increase in “dark money,” or political spending where the source of the funding is not disclosed.
  • Result: This lack of transparency conceals the true source of election spending by special interests, preventing voters from fully understanding who is attempting to influence their vote. 
• Impact on lobbying and influencing policy
  The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, particularly the equating of money with speech, provides a legal shield for special interests to exert influence through lobbying and other channels.
  • Bribery vs. Influence: The Court has traditionally drawn a distinction between legitimate “influence” that special interests and donors gain through campaign donations and illegal bribery, which involves an explicit exchange of money for official acts. This distinction is often challenged by critics who argue it’s difficult to separate influence from corruption.
  • Challenges to Lobbying Regulation: Court decisions, such as United States v. Harriss (1954), have construed lobbying regulations narrowly to protect First Amendment rights. While the Court upheld key provisions of the lobbying act, its interpretation limited the scope of the law to direct communications with members of Congress, providing a narrow definition that has been challenged by modern lobbying practices.
  • Future legal challenges: These First Amendment protections could be used by special interests to challenge other forms of regulation, including ethics laws or even financial regulations, on the basis that they infringe upon the right to petition the government. 

#3. Erosion of judicial independence

• Political polarization and perception of bias: As the Supreme Court tackles highly charged issues, critics argue that decisions increasingly align with political agendas rather than impartial legal reasoning. A 2022 survey found that 56% of respondents agreed the Court should be less independent and listen more to what the public wants.
• Controversial decisions: Landmark rulings that overturn long-established precedent, such as the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on abortion rights, have intensified public skepticism. When the court acts as a “superlegislature,” it is seen as making new law rather than interpreting existing law, a role that undermines its perceived independence from politics.
• The “shadow docket”: The increased use of the shadow docket—emergency requests and expedited rulings made without full hearings or written opinions—has been criticized for allowing the court to act in a less transparent, more political manner.
• External political attacks: The court has faced growing criticism from elected officials, including direct condemnation of rulings and proposals for structural changes like court-packing or term limits. These attacks, combined with threats of violence and intimidation against judges, can be seen as attempts to influence or undermine judicial authority.
• Ethical concerns: Reports of justices’ ethical conduct and potential conflicts of interest have raised concerns about a lack of accountability. One judge argued that lifetime appointments, originally intended to protect independence, now provide judges with little real accountability. 

LIST OF US SUPREME COURT MEMBERS

Republican appointments

• Chief Justice John Roberts: Appointed by George W. Bush.
• Associate Justice Clarence Thomas: Appointed by George H. W. Bush.
• Associate Justice Samuel Alito: Appointed by George W. Bush.
• Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch: Appointed by Donald Trump.
• Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Appointed by Donald Trump.
• Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Appointed by Donald Trump. 

Democratic appointments

• Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Appointed by Barack Obama.
• Associate Justice Elena Kagan: Appointed by Barack Obama.
• Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Appointed by Joe Biden.

 While justices are expected to be impartial, their deeply held ideologies and legal philosophies heavily influence their interpretation of ambiguous law, especially on pivotal votes.

The court’s ideological leanings have also led to rulings that redefine the balance of power between government branches and agencies.

Regulatory power: The court has limited the power of federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to create regulations.

Executive authority: While the court has sometimes ruled against expansive interpretations of presidential powers, it also granted former President Donald Trump broad presidential immunity (STUPID)

The most dramatic impact of the court’s current ideological leaning is its willingness to overturn long-standing precedents.

Some Results:

The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling Undermines Democracy.  

The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. He’s using it as a blank check.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE US SUPREME COURT  MEMBERS SEEM TO HOLD  CONSERVATIVE  BELIEFS WHICH IS COMPLICIT REPUBLICAN PARTY BELIEFS.  IT APPEARS THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS AND SUPREMACY  OF HAVING A DEMOCRACY – DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN – SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!

Posted August 30, 2025 by Score Card.