Skip to main content

Is the Supreme Court playing with fire?

By Bradley Joondeph, Special to CNN
updated 4:38 PM EDT, Tue April 3, 2012
Paul Clement represented the 26 states challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Paul Clement represented the 26 states challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Bradley Joondeph: No one can predict how Supreme Court will rule on health care law
  • He says there were indications that some justices would throw out entire law
  • Joondeph: Throwing out hugely important law, in midst of campaign, would be a big risk
  • He says a decision widely viewed as political could threaten court's stature

Editor's note: Bradley Joondeph is a professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University and a former clerk to the Sandra Day O'Connor, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006.

(CNN) -- Like everyone else who listened to the arguments at the Supreme Court last week, I have no crystal ball for predicting whether the justices will uphold or strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But it seemed clear to me, as it did to most observers, that the court's five Republican appointees are leaning toward invalidating the act's minimum coverage provision, the "mandate" provision that requires most Americans to acquire health insurance by January 2014. This was somewhat surprising.

Even more surprising, though, was that several of the justices also seemed inclined to strike down the entire law, all 2,700 pages of it.

Bradley Joondeph
Bradley Joondeph

This would be extraordinary. It would mark the first time in almost 80 years that the court invalidated such a significant federal law as exceeding Congress' enumerated powers. It would also be the first time since the 1930s that it used the unconstitutionality of a law's single provision to strike down a hugely important law in its entirety.

The justices' apparent willingness to take such steps suggests they may not appreciate the political stakes. A decision to wash away the most important federal statute in a generation, rendered in the heat of a presidential campaign, would likely unleash a political firestorm -- one that could significantly threaten the stature of the Supreme Court.

Reading the Supreme Court's tea leaves
CNN Explains: Health care reform

Opinion: After the mandate, a boom in government-run health care

Some justices seem to ignore public opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have proclaimed as much. And it would certainly be troubling if the court were take ordinary politics into account in resolving most questions coming before it.

But this is no ordinary case, and the court cannot afford to blithely ignore how the nation's reaction might harm its long-term institutional standing.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist, the judiciary possesses "neither force nor will, but merely judgment." And the court's ability to serve its assigned role in our constitutional system as a critical check on the political process depends on the justices' capacity to show the nation that it is exercising principled, reasoned judgment.

Opinion: Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

In short, the justices must maintain the nation's faith that their decisions are grounded in legal principle rather than partisan politics. For if Americans see the court as no more than another partisan body, the justices' capacity to persuade persons of diverse ideological hues will be lost. So will, in important respects, our conception of the rule of law.

With respect to the health care law, an ideologically predictable 5-4 decision -- especially to invalidate the law in its entirety -- runs the risk of creating precisely such an impression. It would be misguided, but that is beside the point. The impression alone poses serious dangers.

Opinion: Obama was too timid on health care

Moreover, the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is only one of several high-profile, highly ideological disputes heading the court's way.

In the next few years, the justices will also be confronting Arizona's controversial immigration law (S.B. 1070); the University of Texas's race-based undergraduate admissions program; a sequel to Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed unlimited union and corporation spending in elections; and, most likely, the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman) and California's Proposition 8 (which bans same-sex marriage in that state).

A steady stream of 5-4 decisions along predictable ideological lines, led by a decision to invalidate the 2010 health law, could prove toxic.

This is not just sour grapes from those who substantively disagree with an increasingly conservative court.

Chief Justice Roberts has eloquently voiced the same concern. In his numerous paeans to Chief Justice John Marshall, Roberts has recognized that the court must attend to its institutional stature with great care. If the justices are careless with the court's political capital, Roberts has warned, the court will "lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.

"The justices must not just be principled and nonpartisan; they must also appear that way to the nation."

Ultimately, the public's faith in the justices as neutral arbiters of law is essential to the court's legitimacy, the independence of the federal judiciary and even the rule of law. When that faith is diminished, something incredibly precious is lost -- something far more important than the outcome of any one case.

I fear that the justices are playing with fire. For the sake of the court, I sure hope they are careful.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bradley Joondeph.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 8:27 PM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
The ability to manipulate media and technology has increasingly become a critical strategic resource, says Jeff Yang.
updated 11:17 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Today's politicians should follow Ronald Reagan's advice and invest in science, research and development, Fareed Zakaria says.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Artificial intelligence does not need to be malevolent to be catastrophically dangerous to humanity, writes Greg Scoblete.
updated 10:05 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Historian Douglas Brinkley says a showing of Sony's film in Austin helped keep the city weird -- and spotlighted the heroes who stood up for free expression
updated 8:03 AM EST, Fri December 26, 2014
Tanya Odom that by calling only on women at his press conference, the President made clear why women and people of color should be more visible in boardrooms and conferences
updated 6:27 PM EST, Sat December 27, 2014
When oil spills happen, researchers are faced with the difficult choice of whether to use chemical dispersants, authors say
updated 1:33 AM EST, Thu December 25, 2014
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
updated 6:12 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
updated 8:36 AM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
updated 2:14 PM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
updated 3:27 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
updated 10:35 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
updated 7:57 AM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
updated 11:29 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
updated 4:15 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
updated 1:11 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
updated 1:08 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
updated 1:53 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
updated 3:19 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
updated 5:39 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
updated 8:12 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
updated 12:09 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
updated 6:45 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
updated 4:34 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT