Insightful Perspective: Alabama Republicans Express Concerns about Partisanship in the Supreme Court

To hear the Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans tell it, they adamantly deny being partisan hacks and find it unjust for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a 2021 speech at the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center, named after Senator Mitch McConnell, emphatically stated, “This Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

Pointing fingers at the “perfidious liberals” in the media, Justice Clarence Thomas complained in 2021 about how the media portrayed their personal preferences as their default positions. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito lamented the “unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court and to damage it as an independent institution” in response to media coverage that accurately identified the Court’s validation of a Texas abortion ban as a nullification of Roe v. Wade.

Interestingly, it’s not just the Court’s liberal critics who believe the justices are partisan. Even Republicans think so. Despite their eloquent speeches about judicial independence delivered to right-wing gatherings filled with wealthy conservative donors, Republicans share the same perception.

Alabama’s response to a Supreme Court ruling nullifying its racially gerrymandered congressional district map serves as a revealing example. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court’s three Democratic appointees in upholding a challenge to the map based on the Voting Rights Act, which argued that Alabama was disenfranchising Black voters. Alabama’s defiance of a direct Supreme Court order and its creation of another district with a white majority demonstrate the necessity of the Voting Rights Act, regardless of the Roberts Court’s historical hostility towards it.

The Court confirmed the lower-court ruling ordering the state to redraw its congressional map to include more districts with a Black voting-age majority, potentially altering the state’s partisan balance. However, Alabama Republicans openly defied the courts and drew another district with a white majority.

It is notable that those who typically decry criticism of the Court’s rulings as “delegitimization” remained silent when a state openly disobeyed the rule of law. Perhaps this silence stems from the fact that Alabama’s actions supported a right-wing cause—electing more Republicans to Congress. A federal court later instructed Alabama to comply with the Supreme Court decision, expressing concern about the State’s failure to adhere to federal law.

On Monday, the federal court in Alabama denied an emergency application for a stay of its ruling, highlighting Alabama’s lack of substantial grounds for prevailing in its case. Alabama’s expectation of winning in the Supreme Court further reinforces the perception that the Court is dominated by right-wing partisans. Importantly, this belief is not held only by liberals on social media, but by the Republicans who govern Alabama. It seems the conservative legal movement’s efforts to shape the Supreme Court majority are paying off.

This Alabama case presents an opportunity for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and the other conservative justices who originally dissented to defend the Court’s legitimacy. Simply by unanimously demanding Alabama to abide by the law, they can dispel any notion that the Court is biased. However, Alabama’s confidence that this will not happen signals a shared ideological consensus that the Court is populated by partisan Republicans. The difference lies in whether this consensus is seen as positive or negative.

It’s important to clarify that Alabama’s confidence may prove unfounded. In this specific case, it is likely that a majority of the Court will prioritize the perception of being guided by the law rather than by ideological or partisan motivations. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh are expected to rule against Alabama again, rejecting the notion that the Court simply needs to be reminded to comply. The Court has previously dismissed such audacious requests, including when Donald Trump’s allies essentially asked the Trump-appointed justices to overturn the election in 2020.

Telling Alabama to follow the law once again, like the initial ruling, won’t change the fact that the Court is fundamentally divided on whether to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society as quickly as possible (which Justices Thomas and Alito desire) or take a more gradual approach (the preference of Justice Roberts).

All of this underscores the fact that critics of the Supreme Court majority are not alone in their belief that it consists of partisan hacks. Even the majority’s political allies share this perception, as they favor such a composition. If the justices truly oppose this impression, they should reflect on what they have done to foster such a commonly held consensus.