Breaking News
Get Actionable Insights with InvestingPro+: Start 7 Day FREE Trial Register here
Investing Pro 0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your experience. Save up to 40% More details

Analysis-'Aggressively conservative' Supreme Court plunges into U.S. culture wars

CoronavirusJan 25, 2022 06:17AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
4/4 © Reuters. A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., November 26, 2021. Picture taken November 26, 2021. REUTERS/Will Dunham 2/4

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear a case that could doom university policies considering race as a factor in student admissions is the latest sign of the conservative majority's eagerness to put its stamp on America's most divisive issues.

The court already was due to issue rulings by the end of June in cases giving the justices a chance to curtail abortion rights and widen gun rights - major goals of U.S. conservatives. The case targeting the student admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, taken up by the court on Monday, gives the conservative justices a chance to cripple affirmative action policies long despised by the American right, with a ruling expected next year.

The court has become increasingly assertive since the addition of former President Donald Trump's third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, in 2020 gave the nation's top judicial body a 6-3 conservative majority. Her appointment changed the court's dynamics by marginalizing Chief Justice John Roberts, considered an incrementalist conservative.

"This particular six-justice majority seems willing to push ahead in an aggressively conservative direction on multiple fronts, without feeling the need to be moderated by concepts of judicial restraint, stare decisis or incrementalism," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Washington-based Constitutional Accountability Center advocacy group.

Stare decisis is the legal doctrine of respecting precedents.

Based on oral arguments held last year, the court's conservatives seem poised, in a case from Mississippi, to undermine or even overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and, in a case from New York, expand the right to carry firearms in public.

The court's increasingly aggressive stance toward taking up new cases signals an emboldened majority accelerating its rightward shift, court watchers said.

The court appears "more willing to reconsider precedent and consider broad questions when the opportunity arises," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve School of Law in Ohio.

Before conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's 2016 death and the subsequent addition of Trump's appointees - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett - the court had been more cautious in deciding on what types of cases to hear.

It had a 5-4 conservative majority, but one of the conservatives, Justice Anthony Kennedy, sometimes sided with the liberals on contentious "culture war" issues including abortion, affirmative action and LGBT rights. That led to the court occasionally avoiding contentious cases or taking up disputes with lower stakes. It appears no longer to have such qualms.


Four justices are needed in order for the court to take up a case. And it has at least that many who are undeterred by being perceived as political actors, said University of Denver political science professor Joshua Wilson, who specializes in conservative law and politics.

"Given the political appearance of the docket that they're putting together, it's all the more remarkable given that they have to know how much the public is paying attention," Wilson said.

The role of Roberts, who has sought to defend the court as an institution and has avoided quick and dramatic moves, has been diminished, with the conservative bloc able to prevail in rulings even if he sides with the liberal justices. Roberts served as the court's swing vote after Kennedy retired in 2018 and before Barrett replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg two years later.

"When Roberts was the median (justice), even the four justices to his right were worried about where he would end up," said John McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern (NASDAQ:NWE) University School of Law in Illinois.

The justices now seem keen to dive in - sometimes even before lower courts have fully considered cases - as they did in multiple challenges to Trump administration policies blocked by lower courts.

The conservative justices also have exhibited skepticism toward the power of federal agencies, which could hem in President Joe Biden and future administrations. The court, for example, this month blocked the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for companies with at least 100 employees.

In what might be described as part of what some conservative activists label a "war on the administrative state" - curbing federal agency authority - the justices have taken up two cases challenging the scope of landmark environmental laws aimed at reducing air and water pollution. They did so despite Biden's administration asking them to hold off while agencies write new regulations.

Ian Fein, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group, said the court was "incredibly aggressive" in taking up the two cases.

The court has also made bold moves on religious rights.

Before Kennedy retired, it was generally supportive of religious challenges. That stance has deepened since then, including rulings backing religious groups challenging COVID-19 restrictions. The court last week heard a case from Maine that gives it an opportunity to further expand public funding of religious entities.

Analysis-'Aggressively conservative' Supreme Court plunges into U.S. culture wars

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
Post also to:
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
Sign up with Email