How the U.S. Supreme Court Altered the Constitution and Steps for Rebuilding Trust

The U.S. Supreme Court, as the highest judicial authority, holds the power to interpret the Constitution and influence the nation’s laws. While its role is crucial for maintaining checks and balances, recent controversial decisions have sparked intense debates over whether the Court is upholding or undermining the Constitution. Critics argue that certain rulings have “shredded” the core principles of democracy, fairness, and justice.

This article will explore how the Supreme Court’s decisions may have compromised the integrity of the Constitution and what actions can be taken to restore public trust in the institution.

Historical Context: The Role of the Supreme Court

The U.S. Constitution, established in 1787, serves as the foundational framework of American governance. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret this document, ensuring that laws passed by Congress and state governments comply with its principles. Over the years, landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973) have highlighted the Court’s ability to protect individual rights and challenge unjust laws.

However, in recent decades, critics have argued that the Court’s interpretations have become more politically motivated, leading to rulings that appear to serve ideological interests rather than uphold the Constitution’s original intent.

Key Supreme Court Decisions Criticized as Damaging the Constitution

1. Citizens United v. FEC (2010):
   In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals, allowing unlimited spending on political campaigns. Critics argue that this decision opened the floodgates for “dark money” in politics, undermining the principle of equal representation and giving undue influence to wealthy donors and corporations over the democratic process.
2. Shelby County v. Holder (2013):
   This decision struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. The ruling led to a wave of voter suppression laws, disproportionately affecting minority communities. Opponents claim this decision eroded voting rights and violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
3. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022):
   By overturning Roe v. Wade, this ruling eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, which had been in place for nearly 50 years. Critics argue that the decision undermined personal liberties and set a precedent for rolling back other rights related to privacy and bodily autonomy.
4. Janus v. AFSCME (2018):
   In this case, the Court ruled that public sector unions could no longer collect mandatory fees from non-members, significantly weakening the power of unions. This decision, according to critics, undermined workers’ rights and shifted the balance of power toward employers and corporations.

How These Decisions Have Altered the Constitution

Critics of these rulings argue that they represent a departure from the Constitution’s intent to protect individual freedoms and promote equality. They claim that the Court has increasingly prioritized corporate interests, political ideologies, and states’ rights over the rights of individuals, particularly vulnerable populations. These rulings, they argue, have deepened political divisions and weakened the public’s trust in the judiciary as a fair and impartial institution.

By undermining key protections—such as voting rights, personal autonomy, and labor rights—these decisions have shifted the constitutional landscape, favoring the powerful over the powerless. As a result, many believe that the Supreme Court has “shredded” the Constitution by eroding the democratic principles upon which it was founded.

What Can Be Done to Repair the Damage?

Restoring public trust in the Supreme Court and repairing the damage done to constitutional protections will require bold and comprehensive reforms. Here are some steps that could help:

1. Court Expansion:
   Some experts advocate for expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court to counterbalance the current ideological tilt. Increasing the number of justices could introduce more diverse perspectives and prevent any single political ideology from dominating the Court’s decisions.
2. Term Limits for Justices:
   Implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices, instead of lifetime appointments, could reduce the political influence of any one justice over time. Term limits could encourage fresh perspectives and prevent justices from holding undue power for decades.
3. Judicial Review of Campaign Finance Laws:
   Revisiting and potentially overturning decisions like Citizens United could help reduce the influence of money in politics. Campaign finance reform, whether through legislation or judicial review, could restore a sense of fairness and transparency in elections.
4. Restoring Voting Rights Protections:
   Reinstating key provisions of the Voting Rights Act could protect against discriminatory voting laws and ensure equal access to the ballot box for all citizens. Strengthening federal oversight of state voting laws could also help safeguard democracy.
5. Greater Transparency and Accountability:
   Increasing transparency around the Court’s decision-making process and requiring justices to follow stricter ethical standards could improve public trust. Justices should be held to higher accountability standards, especially regarding conflicts of interest and personal biases.
6. Amendments to the Constitution:
   If judicial reform proves difficult, constitutional amendments could be a solution. Amendments to address campaign finance reform, voting rights, or judicial appointments could codify protections that current interpretations of the Constitution have undermined.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to shape the nation’s legal landscape for generations. While its decisions have traditionally aimed to protect the Constitution, recent rulings have led to accusations of political bias and constitutional damage. By implementing key reforms and restoring constitutional protections, it may be possible to repair the damage and ensure that the Supreme Court once again serves as a guardian of democracy and justice.