If anybody is questioning the place we’re as a rustic, the reply is we’re the place we now have at all times been. The nation is making an attempt to revisit its defeated ghosts of the previous, making an attempt to revive the instruments of the Confederacy and affirm and cement white supremacy into the material of the nation.
The Trump/MAGA quest for exclusivism has made this very clear. The glimmer of hope for a lot of has been that the courts would restrain this regime from its fundamental need for tribalism, the place being white is the norm and all else is taken into account a menace. However the Supreme Courtroom has failed as soon as once more. The court docket dominated on the constraints of legislation enforcement to cease, query, and harass people as a part of immigration and deportation enforcement.
Increasing Police Powers
What the Supreme Courtroom stated, in impact, was that legislation enforcement can cease and query and not using a outlined motive, possible trigger, or any semblance of articulable standards. In different phrases, the Supreme Courtroom has given a inexperienced mild to racial profiling. Which means individuals may be stopped primarily based on seems, accents, language, hairstyles, trend, and cultural expression — in addition to the way in which they stroll, and even mannerisms which will entice the eye of, or set off the biases of, legislation enforcement brokers. This ruling makes the use and abuse of police powers an elevated menace not solely to the immigrant inhabitants however to all of us who should not white.
There may be an phantasm that our final and finest protection in opposition to this administration’s authoritarian proclivities is the courts. However the Supreme Courtroom and its conservative bloc have been proven to overturn the restraints imposed by the decrease courts. Subsequently, the safety of the courts is an phantasm that has failed us at essential junctures prior to now and the current.
A Historical past of Betrayal
We are able to cite the 1954 choice of Brown v. Board of Training as a shiny mild of hope and victory when “separate however equal” was challenged and Jim Crow legal guidelines have been struck down. There’s a historical past of the Supreme Courtroom upholding voting rights legal guidelines that had been underneath fixed assault since their first passage immediately after the Civil Struggle. However the Supreme Courtroom extra lately has leaned towards gutting all voting rights ensures.
In 2013, in Shelby v. Holder, the court docket eradicated any preclearance of modifications to state voting legal guidelines and districts, making it not possible for the federal authorities to proactively intervene, and due to this fact all however eliminating voting rights protections. The rationale was that the racism that beforehand required these protections now not existed.
RELATED: Voting Rights Act Faces Extinction at 60
The Supreme Courtroom has an extended historical past of falling on the aspect of racial injustices. Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 dominated that Louisiana didn’t violate the 14th Modification and upheld segregation legal guidelines limiting the entry and freedoms of Black individuals and sanctioning Jim Crow legal guidelines.
The Dred Scott choice was stark. It was rendered in 1857 and was one of many worst choices in court docket historical past. It was racist, lacked authorized reasoning, and denounced any authorized standing of Black individuals. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney dominated that Black individuals weren’t included, nor supposed to be included, underneath the phrase “residents” within the U.S. Structure and due to this fact couldn’t declare any rights or privileges afforded by the Structure.
SCOTUS and the Delusion of Colorblindness
The ruling was devastating because it went on to state that Black individuals weren’t entitled to any safeguards of the Structure or the Invoice of Rights. Taney penned the notorious phrases: “That they had for greater than a century earlier than been thought to be beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to affiliate with the white race, both in social or political relations; and to date inferior, that they’d no rights which the white man was sure to respect; and that the negro may justly and lawfully be decreased to slavery for his profit.”
In 2022, the Supreme Courtroom reversed itself from a 1973 ruling on abortion, making a maelstrom in reproductive well being care. Then, in 2023, the Supreme Courtroom dismantled any consideration of race in school and college admissions. Chief Justice John Roberts, a relentless and longtime critic of affirmative motion, opined for the court docket’s majority that schools and universities should use a “colorblind” criterion in admissions. Even the notoriously silent Clarence Thomas felt compelled to learn an announcement: “These insurance policies fly within the face of our colorblind Structure.”
A Courtroom Slanted to the Proper
In an ideal world, we might count on the Supreme Courtroom to be rational, reasoned, making an attempt to guard the rights and dignity of minorities in opposition to the tyranny of the bulk, and aligning its interpretation of the Structure and legal guidelines with an American inhabitants that has grown in variety and has racially expanded. As an alternative, the court docket, which is definitely slanted to the best, has grossly failed in defending the rights of inclusion.
These rights are characterised in voting, girls’s physique autonomy, LGBTQIA protections, the development of racial justice, and the overall safety of essentially the most weak in society. This needs to be the mandate of the best court docket in an more and more heterogeneous nation. As an alternative, this Supreme Courtroom appears to be content material with turning again the clock and pulling the rug out from underneath a various inhabitants, undermining the beliefs of inclusion and failing to thoughtfully right the historic and lasting wrongs of the previous.
The Supreme Courtroom’s newest choice permits legislation enforcement to make use of their stereotypical biases in interacting with the U.S. inhabitants. The court docket dominated that there are not any limitations imposed on legislation enforcement to cease, query, and harass individuals. Each legislation enforcement agent is now invited to convey their pro-white, stereotypical American, “I don’t like them,” “they don’t seem like they belong right here,” “sunset city” perspective to legislation enforcement. Legislation enforcement is now protected in deciding with out an goal and articulable rationale what an unlawful immigrant seems like versus what the markings of a citizen are. The choice justifies and fully unleashes the usage of police powers which have led to racial unrest lately.
The Supreme Courtroom is just not our hope or the place of resistance on this march backward. The court docket has a checkered historical past at finest. The selections and decision-makers on the court docket haven’t typically been involved with the upper beliefs of legislation and justice, however merely with defending the ideological and political framework that the justices come from — and really feel they should defend. And this makes all of us weak and in danger.
Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler is the senior advisor on the Fellowship of Reconciliation–USA, director and chief visionary of Religion Methods, LLC, and pastor emeritus of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ.
