The U.S. Supreme Court has been historically significant, producing seminal effects on the nation’s legal and political frameworks. From Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declaring racial segregation unconstitutional to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ensuring marriage equality for sexual minorities, the Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of thousands of discriminatory laws. This couldn’t have been achieved without the justices’ role as neutral arbiters of law. The right of liberal and conservative presidents to nominate Supreme Court justices creates a balanced political representation in the Supreme Court. Yet, since Trump’s presidency in 2016, there has been an increasing conservative-leaning tendency in the representation of the Court. Adding to this dramatic situation, Trump’s triumph in the 2024 presidential election will further this tendency, raising concerns about its impact on the impartiality of the Court.
Currently, the Supreme Court’s composition is heavily right-leaning, with six justices aligned with conservative ideology – Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett; and three aligned with liberal ideology – Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. When reflecting on the cause of such an unbalanced composition, many believe that the issue stems from the 2010s. From 2013 to 2017, during Obama’s second presidency, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided not to step down, which would have given Obama the chance to elect another liberal candidate into the court. Some critics view this as a major failure of Ginsburg’s – Stanford law professor Michele Dauber argues that Ginsburg was gambling on Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 presidential election, hoping a Democratic president would appoint her successor (Schaffer, 2022). Yet, Trump won the 2016 election, undermining Ginsburg’s gamble. In 2020, during Trump’s presidency, Justice Ginsburg passed away, and Trump appointed another conservative judge to the Supreme Court, shifting the Court’s makeup to a 6-3 Conservative majority—a balance that remained the same throughout Biden’s presidency.
Yet, it is irrational to attribute the imbalance of the court fully to Ginsburg herself. Such a view risks oversimplifying the narrative since this issue is a result of both the individual decision of Ginsburg and the structural issue of the concept of the lifetime appointment. The idea of lifetime appointment originated with the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and remained essentially unchanged despite great social, economic, and political changes in more than two hundred years that followed. Predictably, the context during which the idea of lifetime appointment was built is drastically different in the current age of political disagreement. As a result, whether the lifetime appointment can still serve as an effective tool in insulating the judiciary from political pressures and ensuring impartiality turns questionable. For instance, when lifetime appointment was established, life expectancy was much shorter. Justices now serve longer terms due to increased life expectancy, with the average tenure exceeding 25 years for recent appointees, which likely prolongs the ideological impact of any single appointment. In addition, since lifetime appointment enables justices to retire on unpredictable timelines, Justices are incentivized to retire strategically, aligning with a presidency that shares the ideology. In fact, critics who condemn Ginsburg’s decision not to step down during Obama’s presidency have a hidden intention of supporting such strategic retirement. Such an idea could be good for each individual political party, but in a broader sense, it remains ambiguous whether it truly facilitates justice.
The impact of the right-leaning composition in the Court’s decisions is evident, especially in the highly controversial case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), a landmark Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade (1973), ending the constitutional right to abortion. In a 6-3 decision, the Conservative majority ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. In addition, this case has significant broader implications for privacy rights under U.S. constitutional law. It relies heavily on historical analysis, arguing that rights not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are not protected by the Constitution (“Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997).”). This involves the discussion of the originalist interpretations of the Constitution that will be elaborated on in the next paragraph. In short, the overrepresentation of the originalist interpretations in the Court, which is often promoted by conservative Justices, risks resulting in detrimental effects on other rights that are also based on privacy rights, like the right to marry someone of the same sex. The right-leaning composition is also reflected in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. This curtailed the federal government’s ability to address climate change through broad regulatory powers, a tool the EPA had used to enforce stricter environmental protections. As climate change continues to be one of the most pressing global issues, West Virginia v. EPA highlights the growing tension between judicial interpretations that prioritize limiting federal powers and the need for expansive government intervention in global crises.
In the long term, sustaining public trust requires a Court that balances its role as a defender of constitutional principles with its responsibility to reflect the nation’s diverse values.
An ideologically imbalanced Supreme Court has far-reaching implications beyond its immediate effects on liberal communities. In a highly polarized political climate, such imbalance threatens to erode public trust in the Court’s impartiality and its role as a neutral arbiter of justice. Historically, the Supreme Court gained its authority mainly from the perception that it operates above partisan politics, deciding cases based on law and constitutional principles rather than ideological leanings. However, a persistent conservative or liberal supermajority risks undermining this trust, particularly when its decisions align consistently with one political ideology. This is especially concerning when the Court addresses issues of national contention—such as reproductive rights, voting access, or environmental regulations—where decisions that appear ideologically driven could intensify societal divisions. In the long term, sustaining public trust requires a Court that balances its role as a defender of constitutional principles with its responsibility to reflect the nation’s diverse values. Without this equilibrium, the perception of judicial partisanship could threaten the democratic foundations the Court is meant to uphold.
We can expect that liberal communities’ concerns have worsened now that Trump has won the 2024 election and will serve the country for another four years, starting in 2025. With Justice Sotomayor facing health challenges and being in her 70s, some fear that a second Trump presidency could lead to her replacement by a conservative justice, further entrenching a rightward shift on the Court (Stening, 2024). According to Stening, Jeremy R. Paul, a professor of law and former dean at Northeastern University School of Law, claims that it’s very likely that both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will retire during Trump’s term, further promoting the conservative ideological lean. This is bad news for pro-choice supporters, since Trump once publicly claimed that he will elect more pro-life justices (Mangan, 2024). Generally, the shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court in the upcoming Trump presidency could likely continue the legacy of originalist interpretations of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution should be understood and applied based on its meaning at the time it was written. For example, in issues regarding race, originalists would further argue that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees individuals equal treatment under the law without group-based preferences. Future cases might further limit race-conscious policies in employment, government contracts, or scholarships. In issues regarding the powers of federal agencies, there will be a preference for limiting agency authority unless explicitly granted by Congress, as reflected by West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In the future, originalists would advance a weakening of federal regulatory mechanisms in areas like climate change, financial markets, or public health.
An ideologically imbalanced Supreme Court has far-reaching implications beyond its immediate effects on liberal communities.
This situation raises a question: How will the country be impacted as the Supreme Court turns more imbalanced than ever, making it increasingly difficult—if not impossible—for Court decisions to be neutral? Opponents could claim that there is at least some liberal representation in the Court since we have three liberal Justices. Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that this small representation influences major Court decisions, as seen in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022), both resulting in 6-3 votes. Undeniably, the current liberal minority will be relegated to dissenting opinions, making it harder to influence transformative decisions. The situation is likely to worsen starting from Trump’s presidency.
The future of the Supreme Court is poised to shape the nation in profound ways, and its increasing ideological imbalance underscores a pivotal moment for American democracy. As the Court continues to shift rightward, it not only risks alienating significant portions of the public but also threatens the perception of judicial impartiality—a cornerstone of its legitimacy. With the potential for major rulings on reproductive rights, federal regulatory power, and racial equity, the question arises: can the Court navigate its evolving role while maintaining the trust and confidence of a deeply divided society? As the upcoming term unfolds under a conservative supermajority, the stakes are high, and the nation must grapple with how to ensure that the highest court serves not as a political instrument, but as a defender of justice for all.
Emily Kong ‘28 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at emily.kong@wustl.edu.