The Supreme Court’s approach to conservative supermajority law has encountered significant setbacks. There seems to be a disregard for the facts of past cases, with decisions appearing more ideologically driven than fact-based.
Consequences can likely include acceptance of religious activities in public schools and ethnic profiling by federal agents.
In the 2022 case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court highlighted “short, private, personal prayers” at the 50-yard line after games, as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This ruling also reinstated a high school football coach who had been terminated.
According to Gorsuch, it looked like school officials had infringed on the coach’s freedom to practice his religion. However, the actual facts presented in court were quite different.
The district had no objection to the coach’s private prayers. In truth, he led public prayers involving many students, as well as students from opposing teams.
Some students felt compelled to join in these prayer circles. One student, who identified as atheist, felt that not participating would negatively impact his playing time. Another mentioned how “Mr. Kennedy’s prayers made it uncomfortable to decline to join with other players,” while others felt they participated just to stay connected with the team.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor opposed Gorsuch’s interpretation, labeling it a “misunderstanding” of the factual record, indicating that he overlooked elements that could discredit his ruling.
Earlier this month, in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Court allowed immigration agents in Los Angeles to act on racial and ethnic indicators, such as accents and low-income jobs, during their operations.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh admitted that these methods could also wrongly affect U.S. citizens. He expressed that, in such scenarios, interactions tend to be brief, and individuals may quickly be freed if found to be citizens.
Yet, again, conservative justices seemed to ignore evidence showing instances where citizens weren’t promptly released and their legitimate statuses weren’t readily accepted.
Sotomayor recounted specific cases from the court’s records. Jason Gavidia, a Latino U.S. citizen, was repeatedly questioned by an ICE agent regarding his citizenship, despite assuring the agent of his status. When he struggled to recall the name of the hospital where he was born, one agent grabbed his phone, pushed him against a gate, and twisted his arm.
Similarly, Jorge Vila Montes, a U.S. citizen, faced questioning by immigration agents four times in just nine days.
On one occasion, after refusing to provide his explanation, he was forcibly escorted and detained for additional questioning, though he was eventually returned to work after about 20 minutes.
Kavanaugh had information regarding these cases recorded but dismissed them, downplaying the detentions experienced by U.S. citizens who appeared or sounded Hispanic.
This aversion to accurately assessing facts has become so prevalent that it extends to judicial interpretations as well.
In her new book, “Listen to the Law: Reflection of the Court and the Constitution,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett recounts the tale of King Solomon, highlighting the difference between the deliberations of biblical rulers and the responsibilities of today’s judges.
She misinterpreted this story.
In Chapter 3 of the Hebrew Bible, Solomon was tasked with resolving a dispute between two women over a baby. He suggested dividing the child in two, knowing that the true mother would rather forfeit her claim than see her child harmed.
Barrett’s reference implies that Solomon relied on wisdom “from within” rather than legal sources, unlike American judges bound by the Constitution and law without seeking abstract justice.
This is a significant misreading of the tale.
Solomon adhered to strict laws and had to ultimately award the baby to his mother, unable to grant custody to another woman in the name of “justice,” even if that other woman seemed more suited.
Barrett overlooked the crucial fact that Solomon’s decision was determined by evidence. Once he recognized the baby’s true mother, he had no real option but to give her the child. The details held greater importance than anything else.
While Barrett’s analogy may seem harmless, it reflects a pattern seen in her colleagues’ handling of evidence. Frequently, they reshape and misrepresent factual findings from trial judges to align decisions with their preferences.
A just system cannot endure without a commitment to accurate fact-finding. Historically, this was the role of kings. Today, it falls to the courts in America. Barrett did not grasp that Solomon operated as a fact-finder in a contentious child case.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had access to the factual records in the Kennedy and Vasquez Perdomo cases, which were thoroughly detailed by judges.
It doesn’t require profound wisdom to see that something is fundamentally amiss in the Supreme Court.
