In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken aggressive action to challenge or overturn long-standing protections related to voting rights, reproductive health, and environmental regulations. Many of these shifts have raised concerns about judicial overreach and the erosion of established precedents. Notably, a majority of the justices responsible for these decisions were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, emphasizing the impact of the Electoral College on the composition of the judiciary. This dynamic has amplified debates about democratic representation and the legitimacy of the Court’s influence on American society.

As of January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court comprises nine justices, with five appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts – Appointed by President George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote in 2000.
2. Justice Samuel Alito – Appointed by President George W. Bush.
3. Justice Neil Gorsuch – Appointed by President Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote in 2016.
4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh – Appointed by President Donald Trump.
5. Justice Amy Coney Barrett – Appointed by President Donald Trump.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
In this landmark case, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which had previously protected the constitutional right to an abortion. The decision in Dobbs ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and this decision shifted the power to regulate abortion back to individual states.

Janus v. AFSCME (2018)
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Court overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which had allowed public-sector unions to collect agency fees from non-union members. The Janus decision ruled that requiring non-union public employees to pay these fees violated the First Amendment.

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
This case overturned part of the previous interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Bostock, the Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, thus extending employment protections to LGBTQ+ employees. This interpretation diverged from prior rulings that did not explicitly include such protections under Title VII.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
In this case, the Court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly the formula used to determine which states required federal approval (pre-clearance) before changing voting laws. This overturned parts of earlier decisions that had upheld these provisions as necessary to prevent racial discrimination in voting.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
This decision overturned parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) and allowed for greater corporate and union spending in elections. The Citizens United ruling concluded that restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment.

Overruling of Miranda Rights (hypothetical for the future)
While not overturned yet, discussions around the Court revisiting cases like Miranda v. Arizona (1966) have surfaced, particularly under the current Court’s scrutiny of criminal procedure precedents. Some conservative justices have indicated that Miranda could be revisited, as they see it as an overreach of judicial authority.

The Chevron ruling, also known as the Chevron doctrine, was a 1984 Supreme Court decision that established a two-step framework for determining the validity of federal regulation. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overturned the Chevron doctrine. This means that courts are no longer required to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.

With the overruling of Chevron, courts will now have a more significant role in interpreting ambiguous statutes. This meant that if a law was unclear, courts usually sided with the agency’s understanding of how to implement it. They will no longer be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation. Instead, they will likely play a more active role in interpreting ambiguous statutes themselves.

Hypothetical scenario, “I’ve been a long-time customer of my insurance company. Unfortunately, I was recently diagnosed with cancer. The treatment is expensive, and my doctor recommends starting immediately. However, my insurance company denied coverage, claiming it’s a pre-existing condition. I decided to take the matter to court, but the judge ruled in favor of the insurance company.” Note: this is an example, and this is a possibility under the new ruling.

In the real world this happened: https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-cart-insurance-vanpatten-denials