This article explores the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in contemporary democratic backsliding. I identify three dynamics that have placed American democracy under strain: (1) the incomplete democratization of national institutions created in 1787; (2) a half century of rising inequalities in wealth, market power, and political influence; and (3) a resurgence of intolerant, authoritarian, white-ethnic identity politics associated with the Republican Party. I argue that the Court has proved itself to be capable of creating linkages between these distinct institutional, economic, and sociocultural domains. In doing so, the Court has enabled the transformation of economic or sociocultural power into durable political power and the transformation of political power into the entrenchment of a “permanent minority” immured from democratic defeat. I describe specific doctrinal mechanisms by which this arbitrage role is performed, showing how the Court can be a vector of democratic backsliding.
AbramowitzAlanMcCoyJennifer. 2019. United States: Racial resentment, negative partisanship, and polarization in Trump’s America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681 (1): 137–56.
2.
AchenChristopherBartelsLarry M.2016. Democracy for realists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011).
4.
Baldwin-ClarkLaToya.2019. Education as property. Virginia Law Review105 (2): 397–424.
5.
BartelsLarry. 2016. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. 2nd ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BashirOmar S.2015. Testing inferences about American politics: A review of the “oligarchy” result. Research & Politics2 (4): 1–7.
7.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct. – (2021).
8.
BrownWendy. 2015. Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.U. 1 (1976).
10.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
11.
CasillasChristopher J.EnnsPeter K.WohlfarthPatrick C.2011. How public opinion constrains the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 74–88.
12.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. – (2021).
13.
ChemerinskyErwinGillmanHoward. 2020. The religion clauses: The case for separating church and state. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
ChettyRajGruskyDavidHellMaximilianHendrenNathanielManducaRobertNarangJimmy. 2017. The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science356 (6336): 398–406.
15.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
16.
Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021).
17.
CooperMelinda.2017. Family values: Between neoliberalism and the new social conservatism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
CrickBernard.2002. Democracy: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
DahlRobert A.1957. Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law6 (2): 279–95.
20.
DahlRobert A.2003. How democratic is the American Constitution?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
EnnsPeter K.2015. Relative policy support and coincidental representation. Perspectives on Politics13 (4): 1053–64.
22.
Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).
23.
FishkinJosephPozenDavid E.2018. Asymmetric constitutional hardball. Columbia Law Review118 (3): 915–82.
24.
GilensMartin.2012. Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
GilensMartinPattersonShawnHainesPavielle. 2021. Campaign finance regulations and public policy. American Political Science Review115 (3): 1074–81.
26.
GilesMichael W.BlackstoneBethanyVining Jr.Richard L.2008. The Supreme Court in American democracy: Unraveling the linkages between public opinion and judicial decision making. Journal of Politics70 (2): 293–306.
27.
GinsburgTomHuqAziz Z.2018. How to save a constitutional democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
GoldmanAlvin I.1972. Toward a theory of social power. Philosophical Studies23 (4): 221–68.
29.
GroomsAin.2019. Turbulence in St. Louis County: School transfers, opportunity hoarding, and the legacy of Brown. Peabody Journal of Education94 (4): 403–19.
30.
GuerreroAlexander A.2014. Against elections: The lottocratic alternative. Philosophy & Public Affairs42 (2): 135–78.
31.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2015. Confronting asymmetric polarization. In Solutions to political polarization in America, ed. PersilyNathaniel, 59–70. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2019. Policy feedback in an age of polarization. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science685 (1): 8–28.
33.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2020. Let them eat tweets: How the Right rules in an age of extreme inequality. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing.
34.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).
35.
Hertel-FernandezAlexander. 2019. Asymmetric partisan polarization, labor policy, and cross-state political power-building. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science685 (1): 64–79.
36.
Hertel-FernandezAlexander. 2020. How policymakers can craft measures that endure and build political power. New York, NY: Roosevelt Institute.
37.
HirschmanAlbert O.2002. Shifting involvements: Private interest and public action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
HochschildArlie R.2016. Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American Right. New York, NY: New Press.
39.
HodgesAnn C.2021. The U.S. labor relations system after Janus v. AFSCME: An early assessment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal33 (1): 49–60.
40.
HuqAziz Z.2013. Removal as a political question. Stanford Law Review65 (1): 1–72.
41.
HuqAziz Z.2017. What is discriminatory intent?Cornell Law Review103:1211–92.
42.
HuqAziz Z.2018. The people against the constitution. Michigan Law Review116 (6): 1123–44.
43.
HuqAziz Z.2021a. The collapse of constitutional remedies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
HuqAziz Z.2021b. Why judicial independence fails. Northwestern University Law Review115 (4): 1055–1124.
45.
HuqAzizGinsburgTom. 2018. How to lose a constitutional democracy. UCLA Law Review65 (1): 78–169.
46.
Husted v. Randolph Institute, 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018).
47.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22:129–46.
48.
Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).
49.
JardinaAshley.2019. White identity politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).
51.
JonesRobert P.2020. White too long: The legacy of white supremacy in American Christianity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
52.
KavenyCathleen.2020. The ironies of the new religious liberty litigation. Daedalus149 (3): 72–86.
53.
KeyssarAlexander.2009. The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
54.
KnuckeyJonathan.2005. Racial resentment and the changing partisanship of southern whites. Party Politics11 (1): 5–28.
55.
KolodnyNiko.2014. Rule over none II: Social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs42 (4): 287–336.
56.
KotzDavid M.2015. The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
KruseKevin M.2015. One nation under God: How corporate America invented Christian America. New York, NY: Basic Books.
58.
KyddAndrew H.2021. Decline, radicalization and the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Violence: An International Journal. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/26330024211010043.
59.
LandemoreHelene.2020. Open democracy: Reinventing popular rule for the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
LevinsonDarylSachsBenjamin I.2015. Political entrenchment and public law. Yale Law Journal125 (2): 400–482.
61.
LevinsonSanford.2006. Our undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution goes wrong (and how we the people can correct it). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62.
LevitskyStevenZiblattDaniel. 2018. How democracies die. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
63.
LindseyRobert.4August1986. Rehnquist in Arizona: A militant conservative in Arizona. New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com.
64.
LowndesJoseph.2017. Populism in the United States. In The Oxford handbook of populism, eds. Cristóbal RoviraKaltwasserTaggartPaulEspejoPaulina OchoaOstiguyPierre 232–47. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65.
MairPeter.2013. Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. New York, NY: Verso.
66.
Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983).
67.
McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014).
68.
MechlingGeorgeMillerStephenKonecnyRon. 2017. Do Piketty and Saez misstate income inequality? Critiquing the critiques. Review of Political Economy29 (1): 30–46.
69.
MentovichAvitalHuqAzizCerfMoran. 2016. The psychology of corporate rights: Perception of corporate versus individual rights to religious liberty, privacy, and free speech. Law and Human Behavior40 (2): 195.
70.
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
71.
MutzDiana C.2018. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 (19): E4330–39.
72.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
73.
PhilipponThomas.2019. The great reversal: How America gave up on free markets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
PikettyThomasSaezEmmanuelZucmanGabriel. 2018. Distributional national accounts: Methods and estimates for the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics133 (2): 553–609.
75.
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, 141 S. Ct. 1 (2020).
76.
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, 141 S. Ct. 732 (2021).
77.
RobinCorey.2019. The enigma of Clarence Thomas. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
78.
RosenbergGerlad N.2008. The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
79.
Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019).
80.
RussellA.2021. Minority opposition and asymmetric parties? Senators’ partisan rhetoric on Twitter. Political Research Quarterly74 (3): 615–27.
81.
SachsB. I.2012. Unions, corporations, and political opt-out rights after Citizens United. Columbia Law Review112 (4): 800–869.
82.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).
83.
SidesJohnTeslerMichaelVavreckLynn. 2018. Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
SkocpolThedaHertel-FernandezAlexander. 2016. The Koch network and Republican party extremism. Perspectives on Politics14 (3): 681–99.
85.
SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
86.
StarrPaul.2019. Entrenchment: Wealth, power, and the constitution of democratic societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
