The Roberts Court and the End of the Rule of Law – Legal Planet

Report on the Roberts Court’s Jurisprudence and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Undermining SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

An analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts indicates a significant divergence from the principles outlined in Sustainable Development Goal 16, which calls for the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and the building of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• Erosion of the Rule of Law (SDG Target 16.3): The Court is reported to have moved away from the rule of law by disregarding established legal precedent, creating new judicial doctrines without constitutional reference, and making decisions that challenge the principle that no individual is above the law. The ruling in Trump v. United States, granting substantial presidential immunity, is cited as a primary example of undermining equal accountability.
• Weakening of Accountable Institutions (SDG Target 16.6): The frequent use of the “shadow docket” for significant rulings without full oral arguments or written reasoning reduces the transparency and accountability of the judiciary. Furthermore, decisions that expand executive authority at the expense of congressional oversight are seen as weakening the constitutional system of checks and balances, which is fundamental to institutional integrity.
• Consolidation of Power: A central critique is that the Court has consistently sided with an expansion of unitary presidential power, a trend viewed as antithetical to the democratic principles foundational to SDG 16 and a move toward autocracy.

Implications for Environmental Protection and Climate Action (SDGs 13, 14, 15)

The Court’s decisions have direct consequences for environmental governance, posing challenges to the achievement of several SDGs, most notably SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

• The “Major Questions Doctrine”: The establishment of this doctrine, particularly in the case of West Virginia v. EPA, has been identified as a tool to curtail the authority of federal agencies to implement comprehensive environmental regulations.
• Impediments to Climate Action: By limiting regulatory power, the Court’s jurisprudence is seen as dismantling decades of progress in environmental protection and creating significant barriers to addressing the climate crisis, thereby hindering progress toward national and global climate targets under SDG 13.

Impact on Social Equity and Due Process (SDG 10)

Judicial actions and inactions have also been linked to negative outcomes for social equity, a core component of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• Lack of Due Process: The Court’s refusal to intervene in cases involving deportations without due process is reported to have weakened legal protections for vulnerable populations.
• Institutional Destabilization: By permitting actions such as the unwarranted firing of civil service employees and the reversal of congressional spending directives, the Court has contributed to institutional instability, which can disproportionately harm marginalized communities and undermine the goal of reducing inequality.

Proposed Long-Term Remedies for Institutional Realignment

To address these challenges and realign the judiciary with the principles of democratic accountability and the rule of law as reflected in the SDGs, several long-term legal and structural remedies have been proposed.

1. Reassessment of Precedent: It is suggested that future courts should not be bound by the precedent set by Roberts Court decisions that are viewed as deviating from core constitutional principles.
2. Structural Judicial Reform: The implementation of term limits for Supreme Court justices, such as a 14-year staggered term, is proposed as a mechanism to increase accountability and reduce the political polarization of the Court.
3. Civic Engagement: Continued public engagement through voting, organizing, and protest is emphasized as essential for advocating for the preservation of democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire piece is a critique of the U.S. Supreme Court’s role in what the author describes as an erosion of the “rule of law,” a weakening of institutional checks and balances, and a move away from accountable and transparent governance. The article’s focus on the Court’s decisions undermining legal precedent, expanding presidential power, and abusing judicial processes directly relates to the core principles of SDG 16.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly connects the Court’s actions to environmental and climate policy. It states, “It is hard to watch as the Trump Administration dismantles 60 years of progress on environmental protection and forty years of at least forward momentum on climate.” It also cites the case of West Virginia v. EPA and the creation of the “major question doctrine” as a tool used to weaken environmental regulations, which are crucial for climate action.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This goal is relevant through the article’s mention of “deportations without due process.” This points to an unequal application of the law and a lack of access to justice for specific populations, which is a key concern of SDG 10, particularly in ensuring equal opportunity and upholding the rights of all individuals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The article’s main thesis is that the Roberts Court has launched an “attack on the rule of law.” It supports this by citing the Court’s “cavalier disregard of Supreme Court precedent,” the decision in Trump v. United States which eviscerated the principle that “no man is above the law,” and the practice of “deportations without due process,” which undermines equal access to justice.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The author critiques the Supreme Court as an institution that is becoming less accountable and transparent. This is highlighted by the “massive overuse of the shadow docket without oral argument or written decisions,” which prevents public scrutiny and understanding of major rulings. The call for “Supreme Court term limits” is a proposed reform to increase the accountability of the institution.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The article argues that the Court’s “relentless approval of expanding and unitary presidential power” undermines the system of checks and balances, which is fundamental to representative decision-making. By siding with “unrestrained power,” the Court is seen as enabling a move towards “autocracy,” where decision-making is consolidated in one branch of government, contrary to the participatory model envisioned by the Constitution.

4. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   The article directly implicates the Supreme Court in hindering the integration of climate measures into national policy. The discussion of West Virginia v. EPA and the “major question doctrine” illustrates how the Court has created legal obstacles that limit the ability of federal agencies to implement comprehensive climate policies, thereby contributing to the “dismantles… forward momentum on climate.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not provide quantitative data but implies several qualitative indicators that could be used to measure the erosion or strengthening of the principles behind the SDGs:

• Indicator for Target 16.3 (Rule of Law): The frequency with which the Supreme Court overturns established legal precedent. The article points to Dobbs as “one example from many” of the Court’s “cavalier disregard of Supreme Court precedent,” suggesting this could be a measure of judicial consistency and adherence to the rule of law.
• Indicator for Target 16.6 (Institutional Transparency): The proportion of significant cases decided via the “shadow docket” versus the regular docket with full argumentation and written opinions. The article’s emphasis on the “massive overuse of the shadow docket” suggests that a high number of such cases indicates a lack of transparency.
• Indicator for Target 16.7 (Checks and Balances): The number of judicial decisions that expand the power of the executive branch relative to the legislative and judicial branches. The author’s central fear is the “failure to constrain presidential consolidation of power,” making judicial rulings on this topic a key indicator of the health of the separation of powers.
• Indicator for Target 13.2 (Climate Policy): The existence and application of legal doctrines that limit regulatory action on climate change. The article identifies the creation of the “major question doctrine” in West Virginia v. EPA as a specific legal barrier, the application of which could be tracked as an indicator of the judicial system’s impact on climate policy integration.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: legal-planet.org