The Capitulation of the Supreme Court of the United States
Summary: The conservative Supreme Court, joining the other two Republican-controlled branches of government, welcomes fascism with open arms — Editors
I’m sitting here, writing this on July 4, 2025 – Independence Day. Yet, we are celebrating our independence, the founding of our nation, amidst mass deportation and violations of due process, basic human rights, and personal liberty; amidst attacks on transgender youth and the LGBTQ+ community across this country; and in the wake of several Supreme Court decisions which capitulate to the fascists eroding society, empower an increasingly dictatorial president, and eschew their constitutional duty to check the other branches of government. In the process, the Court undermines its own legitimacy and the rights of those in the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts is a proponent of judicial restraint. In general, justices and judges under U.S. common law avoid tackling constitutional issues and questions unless deciding them is necessary to resolve the case. The Roberts Court is defined by its exercise of judicial restraint when our country needs an active judiciary to delay fascist momentum. The Roberts Court will be remembered as avoiding constitutional issues in such a manner they elevate the power of an increasingly tyrannical executive and undermine the Constitution, all while attempting to maintain a shroud of independence.
These are tall accusations. What cases, specifically, have done so? And how? Perhaps the most alarming case regarding general democratic principles and law is Trump v. CASA, Inc. The facts are fairly straightforward: Trump issued an executive order that identified circumstances in which a person born in the U.S. is not recognized as a U.S. citizen. This is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, under which anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. The plaintiffs filed suit to get an injunction, stopping the implementation and enforcement. A District Court sided with the plaintiffs, and the defendants – the executive branch – appealed.
Ultimately, the Court limited the power of the judicial branch on the grounds that the issuance of a universal or nationwide injunction exceeds the District Court’s power under the Judiciary Act of 1789. A central issue was that the court’s ruling applied to everyone who might be affected by Trump’s executive order. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction, maintaining the status quo that allows Trump to violate the rights of lawful and “unlawful” immigrants alike for all non-parties (those not party to the case) who would be affected by the decision.
The Court’s decision explicitly states it is not addressing the issue of whether Trump’s order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. What is ironic about that statement is that while prohibiting lower courts from issuing universal injunctions seems neutral on its face, the decision allows Trump’s mass deportation program against those born here, who are, therefore, citizens, who are not parties to this case (pending an appeal – although they did give a laughable 30 day delay before their decision will take effect). Implicit in its decision to limit the judiciary’s power is a decision to look the other way while Trump ignores and skirts laws or constitutional restraints that limit his fascist agenda.
Another important facet of this decision is how it was decided. This case, and many others favorable to Trump, were on the emergency docket as opposed to the merit docket. The former has historically been utilized largely for death row cases, while the latter are cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court in the traditional, normal manner. Emergency appeals are used in a legal or political way far less often. In six months, the Trump administration has already used this process as many times as the Biden administration did in four years. The emergency appeals Trump has made have been favorable to him in all but three cases. Cases decided on the emergency docket are rushed and decided in a less transparent way.
Other cases decided on the emergency docket empower the Department of Government Efficiency to access sensitive information, such as Social Security data on individuals, or terminate the protective status of immigrants. Other incredibly concerning decisions have allowed Trump to politicize the state bureaucracy or withhold federal funding.
Another case from the emergency docket, United States v. Shilling, paused an order made that prevented the discharge of a transgender commander in the U.S. Navy. President Trump issued a memo ordering Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to effectively ban those with “gender dysphoria.” The Court’s decision was unsigned, although three Democratic appointees indicated they would not have sided with the government.
In another case involving transgender people, the Court upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors. There are twenty other states in the court with similar laws, which prohibit certain forms of medical care, such as hormone treatment or surgeries to help a person transition to the gender they identify as.
The decision, United States v. Skrmetti, upheld the law despite protests that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause on the grounds the law targeted age-and-medical-based classifications that did not warrant heightened scrutiny. The state, it said, only needed to demonstrate a “rational” basis for the law. Tennessee and other states defend these laws by arguing minors are not mature enough to truly know what they want; further, they argue these drugs have potentially dangerous physical and mental side effects. The Court found this convincing.
As of December 2024, the Human Rights Campaign found that twenty-six states had passed a ban on accessing gender-affirming to varying degrees. This ignores the reality that parental consent is generally necessary for a minor to receive any medical treatment and that the person seeking to transition typically receives extensive counseling.
At the end of June, the Court sided with religious parents seeking greater control over their child’s public education at the expense of LGBTQ+ youth and inclusion. Mahmoud v. Taylor originated over something as simple as story time. A school board in Montgomery County, Maryland, added LGBTQ+ books to the public-school curriculum. The school board provided notice to parents when such books would be read/taught and allowed parents to opt their children out of the LGBTQ+ curriculum. Eventually, too many parents opted out, and the school board ended their opt-out policy. The District Court denied relief to the parents seeking an injunction against the opt-out revocation.
The Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, sided with the parents. The majority reasoned that forcing the children to listen to LGBTQ+ stories and curriculum was a burden on the children and the parents’ religious exercise. The decision will result in a huge burden to school curricula and continue the historical exclusion of LGBTQ+ people from public spaces. Justice Sotomayor, who authored the dissent joined by Justices Brown and Kagan, pointed out the increased administrative burden this case will impose on schools. Further, she elaborated on the marginalization of LGBTQ+ youth and people at large, noting that conservatives in this country like to pretend gay people do not exist. I would go further – they do not want LGBTQ+ people in this country.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ideologically capitulated to the fascists. These fascists want to recreate an America that only has room for white, Christian, straight, and conforming Americans. They want to create a patriarchal society that denies a woman’s bodily autonomy and sidelines gender non-conforming individuals. They blame society’s ills on scapegoats like immigrants or Muslims, all the while empowering the capitalist class that is truly to blame. The conservative Supreme Court, joining the other two Republican-controlled branches of government, welcomes fascism with open arms.
Sources:
Trump v. Casa, Inc.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_new2_0pl1.pdf
U.S. v. Shilling: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-ban-transgender-people-from-military/
U.S. v. Skrmetti: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
Mahmoud v. Taylor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/supreme-court-trump-victories.html?searchResultPosition=2
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/18/us/doc-annotation-transgender-scotus-case.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/supreme-court-trans-children.html
0 Comments