In 2025, the US Supreme Court's conservative supermajority repeatedly supported President Donald Trump's expansive agenda, clearing paths for executive actions on immigration, the economy, and electoral power. This alignment, often without explanation via the shadow docket, raised questions about the court's role in democracy. Legal analysts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the implications in a year-end podcast, highlighting the focus on voting rights cases.
During his first year back in office, President Donald Trump pursued aggressive goals, including crushing the Democratic Party’s electoral power, seizing control over the economy, and deporting millions of immigrants. The Supreme Court’s 6–3 Republican-appointed supermajority actively abetted these efforts, delivering win after win to the president, often over the shadow docket with no explanation.
A rare rebuke came on Tuesday when the court addressed Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Chicago, illustrating how far the president must go before facing opposition from the majority.
On the year-end episode of the podcast Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explored why the conservative justices aligned with Trumpism. Lithwick noted, “A year ago, we were operating under the theory that three of the six conservative justices were not all in for MAGA and genuinely cared about democracy. That was a mistake.” She questioned the benefits of stewarding what she called the “MAGA destruction of America.”
Stern argued that the justices have “fully cast their lot with Trump and Trumpism,” an antidemocratic movement that entrenches power for elites, the wealthy, white people, Christians, and non-LGBTQ+ individuals through institutions like the Senate, Electoral College, and judiciary, as well as voter suppression.
The court’s focus on voting rights underscored this trend. It is on the brink of another blow to the Voting Rights Act in Callais v. Louisiana and recently reinstated Texas’ racial gerrymander benefiting Republicans. Upcoming cases involve campaign finance and mail ballots, alongside the birthright citizenship challenge, which Stern described as a democracy issue about “who counts as an American.”
Lithwick and Stern warned of stakes for the court itself. Having intertwined with Trumpism, the justices risk collapse if the political winds shift, potentially fueling Democratic calls for reform like term limits or expansion. By prioritizing democracy cases, the court aims to ensure a permanent Republican majority ahead of midterms and the 2028 election.
