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 5:22 AM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
updated 2:51 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
updated 4:13 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
updated 7:55 AM EST, Wed December 10, 2014
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
updated 12:34 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
updated 8:42 AM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
updated 12:40 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
updated 11:00 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
updated 4:54 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
updated 5:23 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
updated 1:39 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
updated 3:20 PM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
updated 9:56 AM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
updated 4:01 PM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
updated 9:53 AM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
updated 5:53 PM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
updated 10:50 AM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
updated 4:23 PM EST, Sat December 13, 2014
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
updated 9:26 AM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
updated 9:39 AM EST, Thu December 11, 2014
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
updated 12:38 PM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
updated 1:28 PM EST, Thu December 11, 2014
Rip Rapson says the city's 'Grand Bargain' saved pensions and a world class art collection by pulling varied stakeholders together, setting civic priorities and thinking outside the box
updated 6:10 PM EST, Sat December 13, 2014
Glenn Schwartz says the airing of the company's embarrassing emails might wake us up to the usefulness of talking in-person instead of electronically
updated 5:33 PM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
The computer glitch that disrupted air traffic over the U.K. on Friday was a nuisance, but not dangerous, says Les Abend
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT