Fix The Supreme Court

Who Owns the Machine’s Work? AI, Copyright, and the Supreme Court’s Coming Reckoning The legal system is struggling to answer a question that would have seemed like science fiction just a decade ago: when an artificial intelligence creates something — a painting, a news article, a piece of code — who owns it? And when an AI system trains itself by reading millions of copyrighted works without permission, has it stolen something? ...

The Supreme Court announced this week that it will begin using conflict-of-interest detection software to identify when justices should recuse themselves from cases. Parties filing before the Court will now be required to list stock ticker symbols in their filings to help the software flag potential conflicts. It sounds like progress. It isn’t—or at least, it isn’t nearly enough. The announcement is the latest example of the Court responding to legitimate ethics crises with the minimum possible action: a technical workaround that avoids confronting the actual problem. The actual problem is that two Supreme Court justices are still holding individual company stocks while deciding cases that affect American corporations, their shareholders, and the broader economy. ...

Two weeks after Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election, Chief Justice John Roberts summoned Supreme Court employees to a grand conference room and made them sign nondisclosure agreements threatening legal action if they revealed what happens behind the Court’s closed doors. This wasn’t a response to national security concerns. It was a response to the American public learning the truth about how the Court operates. According to a new report from The New York Times, the Supreme Court has converted what was once an informal expectation of confidentiality into formal legal contracts—complete with threats of litigation. The timing and circumstances reveal everything wrong with the Court’s approach to accountability. ...

On January 30, 2026, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill expanding the state’s Supreme Court from five to seven justices. The Republican-controlled legislature passed it on a party-line vote. After filling the new seats, Cox will have appointed five of the seven justices on Utah’s highest court. This is the same Republican Party that calls expanding the U.S. Supreme Court “unconstitutional,” “radical court packing,” and “a direct assault on our Constitution.” ...

The Supreme Court’s continued delay in ruling on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) isn’t just about trade policy—it’s a troubling sign of how willing this Court may be to hand unchecked power to the executive branch. The Case That Should Be Simple The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump and a companion case. The legal question is straightforward: Did Congress authorize the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA, a law designed for national security emergencies? ...

Conservative media is questioning whether a federal judge should recuse himself from a case because he once donated to a legal aid nonprofit. Meanwhile, Supreme Court justices have accepted millions in undisclosed gifts from billionaires with cases before the Court—and faced no consequences. The disparity reveals everything wrong with our current approach to judicial ethics. The “Scandal” That Isn’t Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota is facing scrutiny for threatening to hold ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons in contempt of court. The case involves whether an Ecuadoran national detained by ICE should have received a bond hearing within seven days. ...

The Numbers Don’t Lie There’s a difference between a conservative court and a partisan one. A conservative court applies consistent principles regardless of which party benefits. A partisan court shifts its reasoning to serve one party’s interests. The shadow docket proves which kind of court we have. ...

When Justice Looks Away On January 7, 2026, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old American citizen, on a Minneapolis street. The shooting was captured on video. Within days, the Department of Justice announced it would not investigate whether Ross violated Good’s civil rights. Instead, the DOJ launched investigations into Good’s widow, Minnesota’s governor, and the Minneapolis mayor. ...

Court Reform Across Generations Supreme Court reform isn’t a new idea invented by frustrated progressives. It’s a recurring response to judicial overreach that spans American history. 1937: FDR’s court-packing plan threatened to add up to six justices to break conservative obstruction of New Deal programs. The plan failed legislatively but succeeded politically—the Court reversed course. 1960s-70s: Conservative frustration with Warren Court civil rights decisions led to calls for impeachment, jurisdiction stripping, and constitutional amendments. 2020s: Progressive proposals for term limits, court expansion, ethics codes, and jurisdiction stripping respond to the Federalist Society’s capture of the Court. ...

Court Reform Is American Tradition Throughout American history, when the Supreme Court has overreached, threatened democracy, or blocked necessary reforms, presidents and Congress have acted to check judicial power. Thomas Jefferson led the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase and refused to enforce certain court orders. Abraham Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and appointed five new justices to ensure the Court would uphold Civil War measures. Franklin Roosevelt threatened court-packing in 1937, forcing the Court to reverse course and uphold New Deal legislation. ...

Corporations as Super-Citizens Citizens United v. FEC (2010) gets all the attention for allowing unlimited corporate political spending. But it’s just one decision in a systematic judicial project to expand corporate power while shrinking worker, consumer, and citizen rights. ...

The Court’s Religion Problem The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has systematically expanded religious liberty for Christians while diminishing everyone else’s rights. 303 Creative (2023): Businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ customers based on religious beliefs. Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022): Public school coaches can lead prayer at school events. Hobby Lobby (2014): Corporations have religious freedom to deny contraception coverage. ...

Democracy Dies in the Shadows The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—emergency orders issued without full briefing, oral argument, or signed opinions—has become a weapon for dismantling rights and enabling executive overreach. Between 2017-2021, the Trump administration filed emergency applications at unprecedented rates, and the conservative majority granted them with alarming frequency. ...

How Republicans Stole Two Supreme Court Seats In March 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court with 293 days remaining in his term. Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings, claiming voters should decide in the upcoming election. In September 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died with just 46 days before the election. Senate Republicans rushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation in record time—just 30 days from nomination to confirmation. ...

The Day the Voting Rights Act Died On June 25, 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 5-4 conservative majority in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the most important civil rights legislation in American history. Within hours, Texas announced it would implement the nation’s most restrictive voter ID law—a law that had been blocked under federal preclearance. Three days later, Alabama passed strict photo ID requirements. ...

When Words Ring Hollow Chief Justice John Roberts released his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, and it’s a remarkable document—not for what it says, but for what it so carefully avoids saying. Roberts chose to focus on Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence, waxing eloquent about America’s founding principles and the judiciary’s sacred duty to decide cases “faithfully and impartially.” It’s a beautiful sentiment. It’s also utterly disconnected from the reality of the Supreme Court he leads. ...

Democracy’s Darkest Irony Here’s a fact that should alarm every American who believes in majority rule: six of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote when they first ran for office—and confirmed by senators representing a minority of the American population. This isn’t democracy. It’s minority rule with a lifetime appointment. ...

No Single Fix Will Save Us When confronting the Supreme Court’s crisis of legitimacy, reformers often advocate for a single solution: “Just add term limits.” “Just expand the Court.” “Just pass ethics rules.” But here’s the uncomfortable truth: no single reform—however well-designed—will fix a Supreme Court captured by the Federalist Society, funded by dark money, staffed with justices who accept millions in gifts, grant presidents immunity for crimes, dismantle gun safety laws, and overturn precedents based on ideology. ...

Federal Agency or White Nationalist Content Mill? The Department of Homeland Security—the federal agency responsible for protecting Americans from terrorism and extremism—has turned its official social media accounts into a distribution network for racist memes, white nationalist imagery, and content celebrated by neo-Nazis. This isn’t hyperbole. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch documented how “the agency and top Trump administration officials have ramped up their promotion of white nationalist or anti-immigrant social media posts” throughout 2024 and 2025. ...

When Access Journalism Becomes Propaganda CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford recently declared that the Supreme Court corruption narrative is “dangerous” and “patently false”. Her defense of Justices Thomas and Alito: the Court is simply “conservative,” and criticism of its decisions doesn’t equal corruption. This is gaslighting disguised as legal analysis. ...