The flood of critical cases accepted by the United States Supreme Court this term was shocking. Add to that the contentious decisions brought by federal District Courts. Several of the most contentious yet important cases have kept the Judicial Branch busy, for certain. And their opinions hack off at least half the nation every time one is released. That’s not shocking at all. Every opinion will ultimately disappoint half the people!
So, is there anything at all that is evident from the opinions of the Courts that can be called “Political?”
Let’s be honest:
Two rulings landed in the past week, and neither went our way. On June 25, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in a case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia. She struck down the President’s March 2026 executive order on mail-in ballots as it applies to those states, and she went further, questioning whether the Postal Service even has the authority to set binding rules on how mail-in ballots are handled.
Then, on June 29, the Supreme Court decided Watson v. RNC. By a 5-4 vote, with Justice Barrett writing for the majority, the Court held that states may continue counting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day, even if they arrive afterward. You might wonder: if the ballot has to be postmarked by Election Day, isn’t that good enough? It might be if there were reliable procedural controls inside of election processes, but the fact is that as long as ballots continue to be counted, they will all be counted. Postmarks won’t be a limiting factor. That’s the real world. But the Supreme Court has more.
The Supreme Court on June 30 struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
And there are more.
The Court ruled on June 30 that state laws limiting participation in women’s school sports to individuals assigned female at birth — described by the Court as “biological women” — do not violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, wrote the opinion for the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, and in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court unanimously concluded that the West Virginia and Utah statutory bans on “biological men” competing in women’s sports do not violate Title IX.
Summary
The findings of this Supreme Court are monumental. Because we live in a deeply divided political environment, we MUST find a way to craft legislation that is “locked down” with details to prevent any “opinions” from controlling its implementation and meanings.
I will never forget the confirmation hearing for Justice Gorsuch’s consideration to join the Supreme Court. At one point, there was a nasty, constant negative portrayal by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of his opinions on specific issues he had addressed in his previous position on the Colorado High Court. Democrats drilled him with questions about how he — if he were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court — would rule on this piece of legislation and that one and another, over and over. Gorsuch, at one point, had enough and responded to one such question with the answer I think most Americans who pay attention to the High Court’s operations today would expect.
Gorsuch pointed his finger at the members of the Judiciary Committee and cast doubt on the meaning of most laws crafted by lawmakers and signed into law by whoever was President at the time. The underpinning of the relentless tirades of several Democrats demanding that Gorsuch reveal how he would vote on this piece of legislation, another piece, and then another piece. Gorsuch demonstrably made clear that the problem of the determination of the meaning of almost all of the laws before the Court for their determinations falls in one area: What did the legislators who passed these laws mean in each part of the legislation?
When one Senator gave an example of contested law and asked Gorsuch how he would rule if he were a Justice, Gorsuch asked a question that, in my opinion, is the answer to stopping such contentious and politically charged issues in Supreme Court settings: What did the authors mean when they wrote the legislation?
The inference — though unspoken — was that those who write the legislation should always make clear the specifics of every part of those laws so that “when” they find their way into a court at any level in a challenge, all would immediately know what the intent of each was.
Sadly, I think that in most such instances, not including the explanation is intentional. I feel it’s a way to open a path to targeting a political opponent in later discussions about the meanings of each piece of legislation, for purposes far beyond a bill becoming law. Instead of being precise and considering potential future issues in each legislative piece they pass for use in the world of politics!
Conclusion
It certainly is easy to look back at numerous bills that took years to become laws, if they ever do. Think about the ability for politicians to use these laws passed in that environment as leverage during campaigns that come our way every two years. What a weapon! And ambiguity is easily used when one needs to play the “What If” game in a campaign to draw as much attention as possible, making one candidate seem smarter and more “humane” than one’s opponent. Let’s close with reference to this idea using what is probably the most controversial of these current Court actions: “Birthright Citizenship.”
We wouldn’t even be dealing with this if the authors of the 14th Constitutional Amendment had made clear, in its creation, discussions, and passage, what the meaning and desired result of each segment of that law was.
That summarizes the issues that sadly are being weaponized today by these same people, in many cases, who wrote laws for political gain and benefit.
I don’t think doing so would take much time. And think of the headaches, heartache, dollars, and time if it were only explained in detail to guarantee that every American would never have to wonder what any of the laws REALLY mean and what those who wrote them wanted them to mean.
