Chief Justice John Roberts declared Wednesday that Supreme Court justices are not “political actors,” insisting that unpopular court decisions are based solely on the law, a claim made just a week after the court hollowed out the Voting Rights Act by striking down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. This decision weakened a Civil Rights era law designed to increase minority representation and opened the door for further redistricting that could aid Republican efforts to control the House, thereby consolidating political power for the ruling class.
Speaking to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Hershey, Pa., Roberts stated, “I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides. I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.” He maintained that the court is “simply not part of the political process,” despite its consistent role in shaping the legal framework that protects accumulated wealth and suppresses challenges to the existing distribution of power.
Roberts asserted that opinions are based on the Constitution, though he acknowledged disagreement with some outcomes. He added, “One thing we have to do is make decisions that are unpopular,” framing the court's controversial rulings as a necessary function of legal interpretation rather than a deliberate exercise of state power.
The State's Role in Power Consolidation
The court's decision regarding the Louisiana district directly impacts the political representation of the working class and marginalized communities. By deeming a majority-Black congressional district an “unconstitutional gerrymander based on race,” the court actively dismantled a mechanism that had previously allowed for a more equitable distribution of political influence. This move serves to entrench existing power structures, making it harder for organized labor and dispossessed communities to challenge the economic policies that benefit capital.
In recent years, the conservative majority court has issued several landmark rulings that further illustrate its function as an instrument of the state in preserving the current economic order. These include overturning the constitutional right to abortion, a decision that restricts bodily autonomy and disproportionately affects working-class women by limiting their control over their labor and reproductive lives. The court also expanded gun rights, a move that often diverts attention from systemic issues of poverty and inequality by focusing on individual liberties within a framework that benefits arms manufacturers and maintains social divisions.
Furthermore, the court ended affirmative action in higher education, thereby reinforcing existing class and racial hierarchies. This ruling limits access to educational and economic opportunities for historically marginalized groups, ensuring that the pathways to upward mobility remain largely restricted to those already privileged by the current system of wealth accumulation. These decisions collectively serve to manage the contradictions of the capitalist system while preserving its foundational inequalities.
Managing Dissent, Protecting Wealth
Roberts's remarks came at a time of low public confidence in the court, reflecting a growing awareness among the populace of the institution's political impact. His condemnation of targeting lower-court judges, stating, “That’s not appropriate and it can lead to very serious problems,” functions as a defense mechanism for the judicial branch, seeking to deflect criticism from the structural role of the courts in upholding the interests of capital.
The Chief Justice's call for criticism to focus on rulings rather than personal attacks attempts to depoliticize the court's actions, presenting them as neutral legal interpretations rather than outcomes with profound class implications. This liberal framing seeks to extend the life of the current system by managing its contradictions through symbolic concessions, preventing deeper structural challenges to the distribution of power.
Even within the ruling class, disputes arise, as evidenced by Republican President Donald Trump’s high-profile criticism of Roberts and other justices. Trump targeted justices who voted against him in an opinion that struck down tariffs he levied under an emergency-powers law, demonstrating that while factions within capital may disagree on specific policies, the fundamental role of the state, including its judicial branch, remains to protect accumulated wealth.