2026-08-18 · contested story
Democrats might have the votes to subjugate the Supreme Court. They won’t have the law
In late June 2026, the Supreme Court issued a series of blockbuster rulings that dramatically reshaped the relationship between the president and the federal government. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court's 6-3 conservative majority overturned the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent, allowing President Trump to fire the heads of independent agencies like the FTC at will. Simultaneously, in Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 majority carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, blocking Trump's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The Court also rejected Trump's birthright citizenship order, upheld state transgender athlete bans, struck down campaign finance limits, and preserved late-arriving mail ballot rules. Amid these rulings, Democrats intensified calls for structural court reform, with figures from Paul Krugman to Senator Adam Schiff proposing court-packing, term limits, and ethics codes.
How each side frames it
left
"Earlier today, the Supreme Court declared war on U.S. democracy. It also declared war, basically, on modern society, on everything it takes to function in the 21st century."
"this cannot go on. This is a clear argument that says we have to one way or another disempower the Supreme Court... court packing or something else is going to have to happen."
"It means that institutions that regulate business, banks, public health, and the environment are nothing more than puppets of the administration in charge."
"relies on his own prior opinions inching toward this very moment—treating his decision as inevitable and right, rather than the result of his own political crusade."
"Between this decision and 2024's Loper Bright ruling... the Republicans on the Supreme Court have all but completed their long-term goal of destroying the administrative state."
center
"The president was on the winning side on the majority of rulings, but the most important case — birthright citizenship — went against him."
"legal realism acknowledges that facts on the ground sometimes matter more than the law... Simply put, the Fed is special."
"If presidents can oust the leadership of antitrust, securities and communications watchdogs whenever they want, the regulatory pendulum is only going to swing faster and more wildly."
"the Fed's role in the bond market was cited by ratings agency S&P Global when it reaffirmed the U.S. debt rating at AA+"
"The other decision... could lead to more volatile policymaking and regulatory whiplash for consumers and businesses, even under future presidential administrations."
right
"The Democratic Party increasingly reflects the views of its most radical supporters... These candidates embrace socialism, which economic history teaches is a path to national decline."
"Democrats are so enraged by recent Supreme Court decisions that they propose changing the basic makeup of the court."
"The 4-3 decision declares the recently voter-approved gerrymander 'null and void' — giving Republicans a clear advantage"
"used the open-ended guarantees of 'free and equal' elections... to invalidate the legislature's deadline... substituted instead rules written by judges."
"at least some of these agencies would not have been created in their current form if not for the expectation that their leaders would be insulated from removal by the White House. If so, now that these protections... have been invalidated, their existence can be challenged as 'inseverable'"
What each side left out
The left left out — covered by the Reuters & Yahoo & The Economist
- That the Court ruled AGAINST Trump on birthright citizenship, mail ballots, tariffs, and the Fed—undercutting the 'captured court' narrative
- The legal/constitutional argument for the unitary executive under Article II
The left left out — covered by the Reason & The Nation
- Gorsuch's concurrence acknowledging the ruling raises questions about congressional power and could constrain future agencies of ANY president
The right left out — covered by the Mother Jones & Los Angeles Times & Financial Times
- Substantive engagement with the details of the Slaughter/Cook rulings themselves
- Sotomayor's dissent warning of power 'unknown even to the English Crown'
- The specific ethics allegations (undisclosed gifts) motivating reform proposals
The right left out — covered by the Los Angeles Times
- That Democrats frame reforms (term limits, ethics codes) as constitutional and popular, not just court-packing
The center left out — covered by the Washington Examiner & Los Angeles Times & CNN
- The explicit Democratic policy proposals for court reform and their political feasibility
What's actually true?
[verified] The Supreme Court overturned the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent in a 6-3 decision, allowing the president to fire heads of independent agencies like the FTC.
[verified] The Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Trump's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, carving out an exception for the Federal Reserve.
[verified] The Court rejected Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in a 6-3 ruling, reaffirming the 14th Amendment.
[verified] Chief Justice Roberts wrote that allowing removal of a Fed governor at will would turn 'for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.'
[verified] Democrats have proposed legislation to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices and impose 18-year term limits.
[verified] The Court in Louisiana v. Callais effectively gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making racial gerrymandering claims nearly impossible.
[verified] The Court, in a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Barrett, upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted days after, rejecting a Republican challenge.
[verified] The Court upheld state bans in Idaho and West Virginia barring transgender athletes from female sports teams.
The narrative clash
Whether the Court's rulings prove it is a partisan/captured institution or a genuine legal arbiter
Left: the Republicans on the Supreme Court have all but completed their long-term goal of destroying the administrative state.
Right: the strong expectation is that Trump will fare better in today's other opinions... it seems like the trans women athletes are likely to come up short
Whether striking down a redistricting map is judicial overreach or upholding the law
Left: The most significant voting rights legislation in American history has been made nearly completely impotent... The justices are pretending racism is dead.
Right: Democrats just learned that when you try to rig elections, you lose... The Virginia Supreme Court sided with the rule of law and struck down Democrats' unconstitutional maps.
Whether court reform is legitimate restoration or illegitimate subjugation
Left: It has been packed, and it should be unpacked. It has become an agent of partisan and cultural warfare, and it should become a neutral arbiter of the law.
Right: Democrats are so enraged by recent Supreme Court decisions that they propose changing the basic makeup of the court.
75 sources analyzed
Mother Jones New York Magazine vox.com The Boston Globe The Nation The New Republic Paul Krugman | Substack Politico The Damage Report The Washington Post NPR NBC News CNN USA Today Original Jurisdiction | David Lat PBS Al Jazeera The Guardian Inquirer.com Deadline The Conversation The Hollywood Reporter CNN Los Angeles Times Sky News MSN (UK) BBC SCOTUSblog Yahoo Northeastern Global News AP News CBC News WRAL MS NOW The Hill Axios KOMO Roll Call TODAY.com Bloomberg.com Good Morning America 6abc Philadelphia WMTW CBS News WMUR Pioneer Press lawdork.com the-independent.com The Daily Line Advertiser-Tribune KBTX News 3 WHAS11 10TV Newsweek WSJ WKYC Reuters The Economist Fox Business NBC4 Washington CNBC Slate Magazine Foreign Policy Balls and Strikes Democracy Docket Financial Times MarketWatch Fortune Yahoo! The 360 Reason Magazine Barron's New York Post Washington Examiner National Review Fox News