A Million-Dollar Fast Track to Bypass Congress President Trump launched his “Gold Card” visa program this week, offering foreign nationals expedited permanent residency for a $1 million “gift” to the Department of Commerce—or $2 million if sponsored by a corporation. The program raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can a president simply bypass Congress to rewrite immigration law if you have enough money to pay? ...

The United States Is Alone When defenders of the Supreme Court’s current structure argue that reform would be “radical” or “unprecedented,” they’re counting on Americans not knowing how other democracies structure their highest courts. The truth? The United States is a global outlier—and not in a good way. Among major democracies, the United States is alone in providing life tenure for members of its highest court. Alone in having no mandatory retirement age. Alone in having no enforceable ethics code with real consequences. ...

“With Fear for Our Democracy, I Dissent” On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most dangerous decisions in American history. In Trump v. United States, the Court’s conservative supermajority ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their “official acts”—essentially placing them above the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench in a rare show of protest, delivered a chilling warning: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” ...

Forty Years of Regulatory Protection, Gone Overnight On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered one of its most consequential—and least understood—rulings in decades. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court’s conservative supermajority overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old principle that governed how courts review federal regulations. The case involved fishing companies challenging a rule requiring them to pay for federal observers on their boats. But the stakes were infinitely larger than fishing regulations. ...

A Justice Who Believes He’s Above Accountability Justice Samuel Alito presents himself as a principled originalist who respects precedent and follows the highest ethical standards. The reality is starkly different. Alito accepted luxury trips worth over $100,000 from a billionaire who later had cases before the Court—and didn’t disclose them. He flew insurrection flags at his homes and refused to recuse from January 6 cases. He told a Senator during confirmation hearings that precedent was “settled,” then systematically dismantled 50 years of abortion rights. He secretly recorded telling an activist that America must “return to a place of godliness.” ...

A Supreme Court Justice for Sale For over 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow valued at more than $4.75 million. Private jet trips across the globe. Lavish yacht vacations. A quarter-million-dollar RV he never fully paid for. Private school tuition for a family member. Real estate deals. And he disclosed almost none of it. ...

The Framing Problem Supreme Court reform faces a messaging crisis. Despite majority public support for term limits and other reforms, politicians treat it as politically toxic. Candidates fear being branded as extremists. Democratic leaders stay silent while the Court dismantles decades of progress. This isn’t a policy problem—it’s a framing problem. Court reform has been successfully painted as “court packing,” a radical attack on an independent judiciary. Until we reframe reform as what it actually is—defending democracy from a captured institution—it will remain politically unthinkable. ...

The Uncomfortable Truth There’s a reality that many in the political establishment find difficult to accept: without Supreme Court reform, virtually no progressive agenda is possible. Not healthcare expansion. Not voting rights protection. Not environmental legislation. Not labor reforms. Not reproductive freedom. Nothing. This isn’t hyperbole. It’s a simple recognition of how power actually works in American government. As long as six Republican-appointed justices hold veto power over the entire government, meaningful reform is dead on arrival. ...

Introduction: The Court Behind the Curtain When most people picture the Supreme Court, they imagine a scene of profound formality: nine justices in black robes, listening intently to oral arguments in a marble chamber, later handing down lengthy, reasoned opinions that will be studied for generations. This is the public face of American justice, a symbol of deliberation and transparency. Yet, this image represents only a tiny fraction of the Court’s work. According to University of Chicago Professor Will Baude, over 99% of the Court’s rulings are issued without any of these formalities on what he termed the “shadow docket.” For most of its history, this docket handled routine, uncontroversial matters. Today, it has become the center of intense national debate. ...

Justice Brett Kavanaugh assured Americans that immigration enforcement stops targeting individuals based on their appearance would be brief and harmless—citizens would “promptly” be released after proving their status. A new ProPublica investigation reveals the disturbing reality: more than 170 American citizens have been detained, dragged, beaten, and held for days without access to lawyers or even phone calls during the first nine months of President Trump’s second administration. ...

The Supreme Court’s recent decision permitting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain individuals based solely on race, language, occupation, or geographic location represents a troubling erosion of constitutional protections. What makes this decision particularly concerning is Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, which provides additional justification for what amounts to institutionalized racial profiling. ...

Court Expansion: Actually Normal in American History Whenever reform is discussed, critics cry that changing the Court would be “radical” or “unprecedented.” This is historically illiterate nonsense. The Supreme Court’s size has changed seven times in the nation’s first 80 years. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a six-member Court. It grew to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837, ten in 1863, back to seven in 1866, and finally to nine in 1869. For most of American history, the Court’s size tracked with the number of federal circuit courts. But here’s what critics never mention: while the Supreme Court has remained frozen at nine justices since 1869, the rest of the federal judiciary has continued to grow dramatically to meet the nation’s needs. ...

The Legitimacy Crisis: A Court Out of Step with America Public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed, and for good reason. Gallup polling shows confidence in the Court at historic lows, with approval dropping to just 40% in recent years—lower than Congress. The Court’s decisions increasingly split along purely ideological lines, with the six conservative justices voting as a bloc on the most contentious issues. This isn’t judicial reasoning—it’s partisan politics in robes. ...

The Abortion Rights Long Game: Decades of Deception The overturning of Roe v. Wade wasn’t a surprise legal development—it was the predetermined outcome of a decades-long campaign. ...

The Federalist Society Assembly Line The Court’s current composition isn’t an accident—it’s the culmination of a 40-year project by the Federalist Society and its allies to capture America’s courts. Since the 1980s, conservative legal activists led by figures like Leonard Leo have built an assembly line for right-wing judges. They identify promising law students, groom them through internships and clerkships, fund their careers, and ultimately deliver them to the Court. Five of the six conservative justices are Federalist Society members, and the sixth, Clarence Thomas, is closely aligned with their ideology. ...

The McConnell Power Grab: Hypocrisy in Real Time The theft of the Supreme Court didn’t happen overnight. It was a carefully orchestrated heist, and Mitch McConnell was the mastermind. In February 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia died, President Obama had nearly a year left in his term. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate judge who Republicans had previously praised. McConnell’s response? He invented a new rule: no Supreme Court confirmations in election years. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell declared, blocking even hearings for Garland. ...