If President Joe Biden hoped to reassure friends and allies that America was ready to lead the charge as a champion of human rights and democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court had other ideas. A series of radical rulings makes America’s exhortations about promoting democracy ring hollow.
The court’s majority struck down federal protection for reproductive rights enshrined in legal precedent for a half century. But it didn’t stop there. Other rulings made it harder for states to protect citizens from gun violence, blocked individuals from holding accountable police who don’t inform them of their rights and eroded religious freedom and separation of church and state. On Thursday, the court issued a ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency that not only obstructs the federal government’s ability to address climate change, but undermines executive regulatory authority across the board.
Each of these decisions raises questions about whether our system really is a democracy by and for the people. Six unelected, unaccountable individuals have managed to take fundamental rights away from Americans, nullify laws and legal precedent that have existed for generations, and impose outcomes that most Americans oppose.
A growing majority of Americans support abortion rights in most or all circumstances. This mattered during confirmation hearings for the three justices appointed by Donald Trump. When asked about Roe v. Wade, all three confirmed that it was legal precedent and said they would respect the court’s standing decisions. But they wasted no time dismissing the public position or precedent once comfortably settled into lifetime appointments.
Solid majorities also support more gun regulation, including permit requirements for concealed carry. The court’s ruling against New York’s century-old law limiting conceal carry will make it even harder for states to address the gun violence crisis.
Six in 10 Americans also believe the United States should play a leading role in global efforts to limit climate change, according to the 2021 Chicago Council Survey. The outcome of West Virginia v. EPA makes that all but impossible, since it hobbles the government’s ability to even lead these efforts at home.
The court’s majority suggests that most of these issues should be legislated, by states or Congress. But the court has thrown up obstacles to this too, by weakening voting rights and blessing gerrymandering. Along with the filibuster, these factors obstruct legislative solutions.
The system today is rigged and provides no meaningful democratic recourse.
Moreover, these three decisions are likely to do serious damage to both the U.S. reputation and its ability to act as a global leader.
The end of reproductive rights is the most obvious example. It’s hard to lead in human rights abroad when you can’t guarantee them at home. While about 20 countries (out of nearly 200) still prohibit abortion, the global trend is clearly toward recognizing access to abortion as a fundamental right.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, only three other countries have further restricted abortion since 1994, while nearly 60 have liberalized access. The vast majority of countries in the world allow abortion under some circumstances, with nearly 40% allowing it upon request at least up to a certain point in gestation (most commonly 12 weeks).
The court’s majority suggests that it is simply deferring to the states on women’s bodily autonomy, bringing it closer to the affected populations. But that explanation doesn’t hold up when that same court won’t defer to states on public safety, preventing them from implementing even the most rudimentary gun regulation in public spaces, an authority states have held for 200 years. Rule of law would struggle to make sense of that contradiction.
America’s record for gun violence is infamous. To lower the threshold for violent weapons in the face of horrific mass shootings calls into question the credibility of the United States to be a force for stability throughout the world.
President Biden cannot credibly claim to lead global efforts on climate change either now that six unelected individuals have gutted his government’s ability to address fossil fuel emissions at home. With the court’s ruling against the EPA, the United States won’t be able to meet its own targets to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. If we can’t make it happen here, how can we convince others to do so?
As we round the corner for America’s Fourth of July celebration, the American experiment isn’t looking so promising anymore. The court’s recent decisions are a threat to the rights, health and security of the American people.
They are also a threat to the world we live in. For better or worse, where America goes, many others tend to follow. In the years ahead, other countries may be following us into a less free, less safe, less healthy and less democratic world.
Elizabeth Shackelford is a senior fellow on U.S. foreign policy with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. She was previously a U.S. diplomat. Dina Smeltz is a senior fellow on public opinion and foreign policy at the council and was previously a division chief and analyst at the U.S. State Department’s Office of Opinion Analysis in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
