Partiality and Partisanship: Examining the Supreme Court’s Calendar and Declining Public Opinion as the 2024 Presidential Election Approaches

This term, the Supreme Court is examining many controversial topics, including gun regulations, the death penalty, and gender-affirming care for minors, yet its calendar is noticeably bland so far. With the 2024 presidential election around the corner, many think these openings were deliberate in anticipation of election-related disputes regardless of which candidate wins. With the Supreme Court’s legitimacy declining dramatically and most Americans believing that the justices rule on ideological and political lines rather than impartially, this term is crucial to define public opinion about the court. [1]  

The upcoming election could bring challenges to the Supreme Court, echoing the disputes in Bush v. Gore (2000), yet this time, the American public already views the court as deeply partisan. [2] In the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack at the United States Capitol and the subsequent legal proceedings regarding it, many worry about what could happen if Republican nominee Donald Trump loses another election. With special counsel Jack Smith’s recent court filings that further implicate former President Trump’s role in the insurrection, the legitimacy of the election results has reemerged in the minds of many voters. [3] Though not through violence, Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore contested the certification of Florida election results in the presidential election of 2000. A Florida law ordered a recount of ballots if the margin of victory was less than one-half of one percent, and Republican George W. Bush’s lead was under this margin, causing Gore to request a manual recount subsequently. Issues of inconsistent ballot methods emerged, with some counties using punch card balloting machines with mechanical issues. The court decided on partisan lines that this recount conflicted with equal protection and due process requirements, ruling in favor of Republican candidate George W. Bush and declaring him the next President of the United States. [4] With a six-justice majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court today – three appointed by Trump himself – an election-related case could deeply impact how the public views the court’s legitimacy if they continue to rule ideologically. The court’s apparent anticipation of these issues signals a fundamental shift in how the American public views elections since 2000, hinting at a loss of confidence in other governmental institutions beyond just the Supreme Court. Following controversial decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), which overturned fifty years of precedent legalizing abortion, many Americans are left to wonder what other rights are on the chopping block in 2024. This term, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of “ghost guns,” which are elusive firearms that come in kits for users to assemble themselves. [5] These guns have been used increasingly in violent crimes and do not require criminal background checks, sparking questions about gun regulation and firearm violence that many Americans care deeply about. This case presents an interesting conflict between a court that generally favors the expansion of gun rights and who also wants to limit the powers of the federal government, which thus creates a decision to vote based on politics or on principle. Expanding the definition of a gun to include kits of unassembled parts could open the door to intense government regulations of firearms, which many conservatives would not favor. Ruling against the government would expand gun rights, yet could also worsen gun violence problems by increasing the availability of untraceable gun kits. 

However, in lower court proceedings, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared more receptive to these regulations, which could signal a surprising non-partisan vote if they chose to vote in favor of the government. [6] When the court is already looked down on for partisan decisions, this case could further cement public opinion that the court cannot be impartial on issues intertwined with political ideology. If the conservative justices rule against the government and in line with their party, unregulated guns could become a dangerous outlet for criminals who would not otherwise be able to access firearms legally, exacerbating gun violence. In this case, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett have the opportunity to shift towards a more impartial view of controversial topics.

While there are many contested issues on the docket this year, the presidential election could define this term’s decisions. Because the decreasing legitimacy of the court rests on its inability to separate political ideology from legal decision-making, topics like gun control and impending election disputes can irrevocably threaten how Americans view institutions of government. While we can likely expect rulings on partisan lines based on trends in past cases, an illegitimately contested election can put justices in a position to choose justice and democracy over party.

Sources:

1. Ann E. Marimow, “Ghost guns, transgender care on Supreme Court agenda as election looms” (October 6, 2024 at 5:00 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/06/supreme-court-new-term-transgender-care-ghost-guns-election/.  
2. Id.  
3. Carrie Johnson and Ryan Lucas, “Judge unseals new evidence against Trump in the Jan. 6 election interference case” (October 2, 2024 at 8:59 PM), https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5137303/trump-election-interference-jack-smith-immunity-jan-6.  
4. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).  
5. Marimow, supra note 1.  
6. Taonga Leslie, “Garland v. VanDerStok” (October 8, 2024), https://www.acslaw.org/scotus_update/garland-v-vanderstok/.