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 6:10 PM EST, Mon November 24, 2014
If Obama thinks pushing out Hagel will be seen as the housecleaning many have eyed for his national security process, he'll be disappointed, says David Rothkopf.
updated 8:11 AM EST, Tue November 25, 2014
The decision by the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney to announce the Ferguson grand jury decision at night was dangerous, says Jeff Toobin.
updated 3:57 AM EST, Tue November 25, 2014
China's influence in Latin America is nothing new. Beijing has a voracious appetite for natural resources and deep pockets, says Frida Ghitis.
updated 4:51 PM EST, Mon November 24, 2014
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a press conference in the capital Tehran on June 14, 2014.
The decision to extend the deadline for talks over Iran's nuclear program doesn't change Tehran's dubious history on the issue, writes Michael Rubin.
updated 2:25 PM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Maria Cardona says Republicans should appreciate President Obama's executive action on immigration.
updated 7:44 AM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Van Jones says the Hunger Games is a more sweeping critique of wealth inequality than Elizabeth Warren's speech.
updated 6:29 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
obama immigration
David Gergen: It's deeply troubling to grant legal safe haven to unauthorized immigrants by executive order.
updated 8:34 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Charles Kaiser recalls a four-hour lunch that offered insight into the famed director's genius.
updated 3:12 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
The plan by President Obama to provide legal status to millions of undocumented adults living in the U.S. leaves Republicans in a political quandary.
updated 10:13 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Despite criticism from those on the right, Obama's expected immigration plans won't make much difference to deportation numbers, says Ruben Navarette.
updated 8:21 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
As new information and accusers against Bill Cosby are brought to light, we are reminded of an unshakable feature of American life: rape culture.
updated 5:56 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
When black people protest against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri, they're thought of as a "mob."
updated 3:11 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Lost in much of the coverage of ISIS brutality is how successful the group has been at attracting other groups, says Peter Bergen.
updated 8:45 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Do recent developments mean that full legalization of pot is inevitable? Not necessarily, but one would hope so, says Jeffrey Miron.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
We don't know what Bill Cosby did or did not do, but these allegations should not be easily dismissed, says Leslie Morgan Steiner.
updated 10:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Does Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have the influence to bring stability to Jerusalem?
updated 12:59 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Even though there are far fewer people being stopped, does continued use of "broken windows" strategy mean minorities are still the target of undue police enforcement?
updated 9:58 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
The truth is, we ran away from the best progressive persuasion voice in our times because the ghost of our country's original sin still haunts us, writes Cornell Belcher.
updated 4:41 PM EST, Tue November 18, 2014
Children living in the Syrian city of Aleppo watch the sky. Not for signs of winter's approach, although the cold winds are already blowing, but for barrel bombs.
updated 8:21 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
We're stuck in a kind of Middle East Bermuda Triangle where messy outcomes are more likely than neat solutions, says Aaron David Miller.
updated 7:16 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
In the midst of the fight against Islamist rebels seeking to turn the clock back, a Kurdish region in Syria has approved a law ordering equality for women. Take that, ISIS!
updated 11:07 PM EST, Sun November 16, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says President Obama would be justified in acting on his own to limit deportations
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT