The public doesn’t want an untouchable Supreme Court. Will our leaders listen? ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

When I go around the country speaking about my recent book on the Supreme Court’s lurch to the right, The Supermajority, something striking happens. Audiences listen intently (I’m grateful!). They nod. Sometimes they even laugh. But when I mention a solution — an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices — they interrupt with surprising applause. Finally, you can hear them thinking, something to do that makes sense.

A bunch of liberal bookworms out on an autumn night? Actually, their reaction reflects a durable, powerful consensus. Term limits turn out to be popular with conservatives and progressives, Democrats, Republicans, and independents. They are reclaiming a long tradition in which the political system properly debates how to hold to account the very, very unaccountable Court. And later this week, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will introduce legislation to enact term limits. It’s a big moment in the fight for reform.

In July, the Brennan Center and Benenson Strategy Group polled 808 likely voters about their attitudes toward the Supreme Court and their support for reform. What we found was the nearest thing to consensus you can expect in a hyperpolarized era.

More than three-quarters of participants favored a code of ethics for the justices, including 72 percent of independents and 58 percent of Republicans. Sixty-nine percent supported imposing an 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices, including 58 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans. The public appetite for reform is strong and bipartisan. (Court-packing was the only of the three reforms that did not garner majority support, reflecting the persistent taboo dating from the Franklin D. Roosevelt era.)

Our leaders are clearly trailing public opinion on Supreme Court reform, but I’m hopeful that the era of cowering before the Court is coming to an end.

The justices are — perhaps unwittingly — doing their part to put Court reform back on the table. The Court’s conservative supermajority has trampled long-settled precedents such as Roe v. Wade. It has forced an unrecognizable reading of the Second Amendment onto a country already reeling from gun violence. And it’s tried to install originalism as the only way to understand the Constitution. This Court’s jurisprudence is about as far from judicial restraint as it has been in at least a century. To make matters worse, some of the justices have flouted plain ethical norms. And their shrugging response to the uproar suggests indifference to the views of the American people.

Meaningful reform is finally peeking over the political parapet. Rep. Hank Johnson (D) of Georgia has introduced a bill to impose term limits on the justices. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) of Rhode Island, the author of a new book on how dark money transformed the Supreme Court, appeared at a Brennan Center event last week to discuss reform. His own term limits bill is expected to be introduced this week. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved a bill to require the Court to adopt a code of ethics.

It will be a long road. Conservatives fought for decades to win their hard-right majority on the Court. Even if their constituents crave reform, they (and their donors) will resist anything that threatens the status quo. But big change rarely happens quickly. This is the beginning of a very important, and long overdue, national conversation.





A Major Second Amendment Case on the Docket

The Supreme Court will soon hear another major gun rights case, less than two years after it ruled that courts must weigh history and tradition, not public safety, when assessing gun control laws. That decision has been used to topple gun safety laws nationwide — including a federal prohibition on domestic abusers owning guns. In U.S. v. Rahimi, the justices may try to retreat from this extreme approach to the Second Amendment and even rethink its “history and tradition” test. However, Michael Waldman warns in the New Republic, “if the supermajority redoubles the reactionary implications of its gun ruling, the public response could well be deadly to the Court’s standing.” Read more

[link removed]

Protecting Americans from Government Spying

An independent government agency is urging Congress to implement substantial reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a tool that has been used to spy on Americans. Many of its recommendations, such as requiring judicial approval before intelligence agencies can review Americans’ communications, echo long-standing arguments by privacy and civil liberties advocates that surveillance reforms are both necessary and practical. “Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect Americans’ privacy from abusive government surveillance. It must take it,” Noah Chauvin writes. Read more

[link removed]

An Alarming Legal Loophole in Texas

Texas’s attorney general has taken advantage of a unique legal quirk to undo court orders temporarily blocking state laws restricting abortion, gender-affirming care for transgender youth, and nearly 20 other significant issues being considered by the courts. Given the numerous constitutional challenges to new laws being passed by the state’s conservative-controlled legislature, it is likely that Texas’s attorney general will continue exploiting this power. A new State Court Report article explains how this legal loophole works, how it differs from laws in other states, and how it endangers the balance of state government powers in Texas. READ MORE

[link removed]





News

Eliza Sweren-Becker on Florida’s unwarranted voter prosecutions // WFSU

[link removed]

Kareem Crayton on the court order to redraw Alabama’s congressional map // BLACK AGENDA RADIO

[link removed]

Michael Li on vetoed redistricting reforms in California // CALMATTERS

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]