The High Court Under Siege

The Supreme Court delivered three distinct opinions this past Thursday, proving once again that the highest bench in the land remains the final arbiter of American law even as the political world around it burns. These rulings from the April argument session, two of which were unanimous, address technical but vital questions of federal power and financial restitution. While the cases themselves may seem narrow, they arrive at a moment of profound institutional friction as the executive branch doubles down on a campaign of legal retribution and activists demand a fundamental overhaul of the court’s structure. To ignore the substance of these rulings is to miss the fact that the justices are still working together even while the public debates their very existence.

This matters because we are witnessing a collision between the slow, deliberate work of constitutional law and the fast, erratic impulses of partisan politics. At stake is the independence of the third branch. If the court is viewed merely as another political prize to be seized or expanded, its capacity to serve as a check on power vanishes. The recent flurry of opinions suggests a bench trying to signal stability to a nervous nation, yet the noise from the street and the White House threatens to drown out every word they write. We must decide if we value the law as a set of rules or as a weapon for the side that happens to hold the majority.

According to reports from SCOTUSblog, the court showed a surprising degree of consensus in its initial output from the April session. In Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the justices validated the use of disgorgement as a tool for securities enforcement. This unanimous decision provides the SEC with the continued power to reclaim ill-gotten gains from those who violate federal law. It is a win for regulatory stability, documented in detail at https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/justices-validate-secs-use-of-disgorgement-in-securities-enforcement/. By speaking with one voice on such a technical matter, the court reminds us that much of their work remains grounded in statutory interpretation rather than partisan ideology.

This stability stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Department of Justice under the current administration. As ABC News has documented, the DOJ has launched what critics characterize as a campaign of retribution against perceived political enemies. The list of targets includes former FBI Director James Comey and others who have cross-examined the executive branch in years past. The details of these efforts, found at https://abcnews.com/US/list-individuals-including-lisa-cook-targeted-trump-administration/story?id=124968309, suggest a presidency that views the legal system as a tool for settling scores. When the executive branch treats the law as a cudgel, the Supreme Court becomes the only remaining barrier to total administrative whim.

Yet the public remains deeply divided on whether the court should be left as it is. A recent analysis of national sentiment shows that the debate over court expansion is far from settled. As outlined at https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/do-americans-support-expanding-the-court/, there is a growing appetite for structural change, driven by the belief that the current bench is out of step with the electorate. This data reveals a culture that is losing faith in the idea of a fixed constitutional order, preferring instead to change the rules of the game whenever the score does not go their way. The three opinions released this Thursday are a quiet rebuttal to this movement, showing that the justices can still find common ground on the hardest questions of federal authority.

Historically, the Supreme Court has survived periods of intense unpopularity by retreating into the technicalities of the law. During the New Deal era, it was the threat of court-packing that eventually forced a shift in judicial philosophy. Today, the pressure comes from both sides: one side wants to pack the bench with more seats to tilt the scales, while the other side uses the DOJ to bypass the courts altogether through aggressive prosecutions of former officials. We are reliving a constitutional crisis that our ancestors would recognize, but with the added speed of a digital news cycle that favors outrage over analysis.

Some argue that the court brought this on itself. They say that a series of high-profile, polarized decisions on social issues has destroyed the veneer of judicial neutrality. There is weight to this claim. When the court moves too quickly to dismantle decades of precedent, it invites the very skepticism that now fuels the expansion movement. If the justices act like politicians in robes, they can hardly complain when the public treats them as such. However, the solution to a perceived lack of balance is not to destroy the scales entirely. Expanding the court to achieve a preferred policy outcome is not reform; it is a hostile takeover.

We must watch how the remaining cases of this term unfold. If the court continues to find unanimity in its rulings on executive and regulatory power, it may yet save its own reputation. If it retreats into predictable six-to-three splits on every major case, the calls for expansion will only grow louder. The question we must ask is not whether we like the current justices, but whether we believe in a system that limits the power of whoever happens to be in the White House. If the court falls, the law falls with it, and we will be left with nothing but the rule of the strongest. A bench of nine is a fragile thing, but a bench of fifteen or twenty is just another parliament.