On Friday, activist Shannon Watts took to social media to respond to the Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling United States v. Laxmi, in which a judge ruled that the government can legally temporarily disarm someone a court determines poses a security threat to others. “The Rashmi case should never have been heard by the Supreme Court,” she said in a now-deleted post on X, formerly Twitter. “To even question whether domestic abusers should have access to guns shows how extreme this court has become.”
This is strange to say for several reasons. First, by almost everyone’s perspective, the decision is a victory for Watts: She is the founder of the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action. Even more puzzling is that the Supreme Court’s ruling overturned the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, so if the justices had not taken up the case, they would have left the following ruling intact: prohibit The government cannot impose a gun ownership ban on people whom Watts firmly believes should not have access to guns.
But the story here is not that an activist said something head-scratching. The story is that Watts, while making little sense, actually makes perfect sense in the broader context of the panic associated with the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
It’s worth asking how we got here. This panic is not new. But it has culminated in more drama than the most tortured Tchaikovsky symphony since the end of former President Donald Trump’s administration and the eventual appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the justice. This is a very high standard.
We sometimes hear that the conservative majority is both extreme and radical, and that the ideological divisions could not be more stark. people are, certainly, It’s entitled to know what they think about the various decisions handed down by the Supreme Court; at some point, at least one of them is (understandably) destined to disappoint you. But what’s been overlooked in this news cycle is that the justices agreed a lot of time.
For example, decisions early this semester set the stage for historic events. (This was historic unity, not division.) Of the 18 rulings issued this semester from December to April, 15 were unanimous, according to Adam Feldman (former statistics editor) . Supreme Court Blog—This is the most united the Supreme Court has ever been at the start of a term in recent history.
But what about those infamous 6-3 splits? There are indeed a lot of 6-3 rulings. What almost never makes the news, however, is that most such decisions issued so far this term have been divided along standard party lines. Instead, they are made up of unorthodox alliances that challenge the notion that evaluating the law is an entirely ideological task. It’s a rich story, but one that’s rarely told.
You don’t have to look far to find examples. For example, last week I wrote about Ehlinger v. United States, in which courts strengthened the right to a jury trial and the right to due process in criminal sentencing. On the surface, this issue may seem more culturally acceptable to those on the left. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in the 6-3 ruling was joined not only by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, but also by Sony Justices A. Sotomayor and Elena Kagan concurred. Dissenters: Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and…Cotanji Brown Jackson.
This does not negate the fact that there were indeed some very important rulings along ideological lines. Court decisions in 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—capsize Roe v. Wade and conclude that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion—which may be the epitome of many people. That’s definitely part of the story.
But common misbeliefs are: all Stories are how you get coverage and commentary, like Watts or MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who said shortly after the release on Friday Laxmi Decision “The risk for Trump’s second term is his chance to transform the Supreme Court into a Fifth Circuit.” His comments were equally strange, especially given that the ruling once again explicitly overturned the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. Eight of the nine justices, including all Trump appointees, voted with the majority.
None of these judges is above reproach or criticism. People will continue to find valid reasons to object to their jurisprudence. But fear-mongering when the underlying reality is inconsistent with the facts reminds us how artificially created this fear is.
