Current Debates & Interpretations (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note

• Partisan appointments have increased ideological predictability

  • President Trump appointed three conservative justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) between 2017–2020

• Decisions are guided by legal reasoning and precedent

  • Rulings rely on established legal frameworks rather than partisan preferences

  • Justices reference stare decisis, statutes and the Constitution

• Ideological voting patterns show partisan alignment

  • The 6–3 conservative majority ruling in Dobbs v Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v Wade

  • There has been a growth in 6–3 conservative rulings since the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett

• Cross-ideology consensus occurs in key cases

  • The Court routinely reaches decisions that do not align neatly with ideological expectations

    • In NFIB v Sebelius (2012), John Roberts sided with the liberal bloc to uphold the Affordable Care Act

• Confirmation battles have become intensely political

• Stare decisis promotes consistency

  • Following precedent helps ensure decisions are predictable and legally grounded

• Public perception increasingly sees the Court as political

  • Surveys show low trust among Democrats after abortion-related rulings

• Justices write long, carefully reasoned opinions

  • In Rucho v Common Cause (2019), the Court explained why partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable

• The Court’s policy impact demonstrates political influence

  • Rulings on abortion, same-sex marriage and voting rights have inherently political consequences

• Judicial independence and life tenure reduce political pressure

  • In Brown v Board of Education (1954), the Court struck down segregation decades before many politicians supported integration

• Predictability and stability

  • Originalism ensures decisions adhere closely to the Constitution as it was ratified

  • This provides certainty in law and prevents abrupt shifts in law

    • Clarence Thomas applied a historical approach in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022)

• Adaptability to societal change - Living constitutionalism allows the Court to address issues unforeseen by the Founding Fathers

  • In Carpenter v United States (2018), the Court recognised modern privacy rights for digital data

• Democratic legitimacy

  • Laws should reflect choices of elected representatives

    • Dobbs v Jackson (2022) argued abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and should be returned to elected officials

• Rights expansion

  • A living constitutionalist approach can protect marginalised groups

    • Bostock v Clayton County (2020) extended employment protections to LGBTQ+ individuals

• Limits judicial power

  • Adhering to original meaning constrains judges in controversial areas such as abortion, affirmative action and gun control

• Social relevance

  • Ensures constitutional protections remain meaningful in changing contexts

• Historical grounding

  • Roots decisions in the Constitution’s text and the framers’ intent

  • Provides a defensible rationale for controversial rulings

• Promotion of social justice

  • Allows reinterpretation of constitutional protections to advance broader equity

  • In Miller v Alabama (2012), the Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles

• Consistency over time

  • Provides continuity in constitutional interpretation

  • Protects long-standing rights from ideological shifts

• Checks against majoritarian oppression

  • Enables courts to defend minorities against discriminatory laws

    • Obergefell v Hodges (2015) legalised same-sex marriage nationwide despite opposition in many states

• Independent judiciary

  • Justices can enforce constitutional rights free from political pressure

  • Bostock v Clayton County (2020) ensured LGBTQ+ workers had employment protection despite partisan opposition

• Persistent inequality

  • Structural disparities in voting, criminal justice, healthcare and economic opportunity undermine the practical impact of rights

• Strong precedent (stare decisis)

  • Long-standing rights like free speech are reinforced by prior rulings

  • In Matal v Tam (2017), the Court upheld First Amendment protections for controversial speech

• Political interference

  • Attempts to roll back DACA protections or restrict voting rights demonstrate political pressure affecting enforcement

  • The Supreme Court and President Trump worked to limit President Obama’s executive orders on immigration (DACA and DAPA)

• Federal oversight

  • Federal agencies and laws provide enforcement mechanisms for the protection of rights

  • Courts have upheld policies in cases such as Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

• Uneven state enforcement of rights

• Rights vary significantly across states

  • Following Dobbs v Jackson (2022), Texas almost entirely banned abortions, whilst California moved to protect abortion rights

• Interest group action

  • Groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and ACLU litigate to protect civil rights

  • Groups can bring cases, submit amicus curiae briefs, shape legislation and gain public support

• Judicial rollbacks

  • Conservative rulings such as Dobbs (2022) show how protections can be eliminated

  • The majority opinion mentioned that Obergefell v Hodges (2015) should also be reviewed

• Constitutional entrenchment

  • The Bill of Rights and Amendments provide a stable legal foundation - the difficulty of amendment means rights are difficult to challenge

• Congressional gridlock

  • Hyperpartisanship has resulted in low levels of legislation being passed

  • Following BLM protests after George Floyd’s death in 2020, Congress passed only minimal restrictions on law enforcement powers

• Judicial review allows the Court to overturn democratically enacted laws

  • Unelected justices have enormous influence over public policy

  • In Dobbs v Jackson (2022), the Court overturned Roe v Wade (1973)

• Constitutional limits define the Court’s authority

  • The Court is restricted to specific cases and controversies rather than allowing lawmaking at will

  • In Texas v California, the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act because there was no past or future injury

• Life tenure grants decades of unaccountable power

  • Justices can shape law far beyond the political mandate of their appointing president

  • Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991, continues to influence rulings across multiple generations

• Checks and balances limit power

  • Congress can pass new legislation or propose constitutional amendments in response to rulings

  • President Biden pressured Congress to pass national abortion protection, although they failed to do so

• Court rulings have immediate and widespread consequences

  • Shelby County v Holder (2013) invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act

  • This allowed states like Texas and Georgia to implement restrictive voter ID laws

• Judicial authority is constrained by precedent

  • Precedent prevents arbitrary decisions

  • In Rucho v Common Cause (2019), the Court ruled partisan gerrymandering was beyond the power of federal courts

• Limited accountability to the public

  • Justices can make ideologically driven decisions without electoral consequences

  • The controversial confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett (2020) showed political considerations dominating the process

• Enforcement depends on the executive branch

  • Rulings cannot be implemented without cooperation

  • Desegregation orders relied on federal enforcement during the 1950s–1960s

• Policy influence exceeds the judiciary’s original powers

• Decisions shape areas like healthcare (NFIB v Sebelius, 2012), immigration (Trump v Hawaii, 2018) and gun rights (Bruen, 2022)

• The amendment process provides ultimate control

  • The Court cannot permanently ignore constitutional change

  • The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age in 1971

Arguments that equality is effectively protected

Arguments that these measures are not effective

• Affirmative action promotes diversity in education and employment

  • Fisher v University of Texas (2016) upheld race-conscious admissions policies

• Supreme Court rollbacks weaken protections

  • Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023) ruled against certain race-conscious admission policies

• Executive programmes can provide temporary relief and protection

  • ACA (2012) protected over 700,000 undocumented youth from deportation and allowed access to work permits

• Political opposition can limit implementation

  • Republican-controlled states and Congress attempted to restrict affirmative action programmes and limit DACA protections

• Court oversight can safeguard rights

  • The Supreme Court occasionally upholds policies that expand opportunity

    • Grutter v Bollinger (2003) supported race-conscious admissions at Michigan Law School

• Uneven application across states creates disparities

  • California protects affirmative action, while Michigan and Florida have banned it entirely

• State policies maintain protections where federal measures falter

  • California maintained affirmative action in public universities even when challenged federally

• Legal uncertainty discourages long-term planning

  • Educational institutions hesitate to implement programmes that may be overturned in future Court decisions

• Civil rights organisations and litigation maintain momentum

  • Groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund continue to challenge discrimination

• Social and political backlash can undermine support

  • In California, affirmative action had been banned since Proposition 209 (1996)

    • Proposition 16 to repeal the ban was rejected in 2020 (57% voting “No”)