WHEREAS:
The far-right majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly abused its power with extreme rulings favoring the rich and powerful over ordinary Americans, including the 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME which made the entire public sector right-to-work; and
WHEREAS:
The court has continued to rewrite American law in accordance with far-right ideology. In 2022, the court for the first time in history took away an individual constitutional right when it overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to restrict, regulate and even criminalize women’s reproductive rights. In 2023, the court backtracked on civil rights, declaring that public and private colleges and universities can no longer consider race in making admissions decisions; and
WHEREAS:
In 2024, the court shockingly created new immunity from prosecution for U.S. presidents engaged in official acts and hamstrung efforts to hold presidents accountable even for clearly criminal actions. The court also wiped out a four-decades-old judicial doctrine of deference to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of law, replacing agency expertise with their own judgments; and
WHEREAS:
Federal courts at all levels are increasingly activist, striking down with abandon presidential executive orders, agency regulations and even statutes enacted by Congress. The Supreme Court has invalidated hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt relief, and federal courts have blocked or jeopardized dozens of agency rules designed to protect workers, consumers, voters and the environment. Litigants with political agendas or vested interests select federal district courts where their case is guaranteed or virtually guaranteed to be heard by a judge who shares their ideological agenda; and
WHEREAS:
While Chief Justice John Roberts declared at his 2005 confirmation hearing that judges “operate within a system of precedent,” and “[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat,” it has become increasingly clear that some justices in the far-right majority behave very differently, telling litigants which pitches to throw and making up their own strike zones. One must look no further than the Janus decision and the events that led to the court overturning its four-decades-old precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that had upheld fair-share fees for public sector unions. Justice Samuel Alito used a majority opinion in a 2012 case to signal strongly that he wanted to overturn Abood even though the litigants never questioned that decision. Even at that time, it was clear that Alito was operating outside the foul lines of the court’s playing field. Writing separately, Justice Sonya Sotomayor argued, “By doing this, the majority breaks our own rules and, more importantly, disregards principles of judicial restraint that define the Court’s proper role in our system of separated powers;” and
WHEREAS:
The radicalism of the current court sharply deviates from the political views of the American people and the electorate, due in large part to political manipulation and structural inequities. Three justices were put in place by President Donald Trump despite Trump’s 2016 popular vote loss. The first Trump appointment was to a seat held vacant for nearly eight months before the 2016 election, as the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee. In contrast, Trump’s third nominee was confirmed in 30 days, just eight days before the election Trump lost to Joe Biden. Trump’s Supreme Court picks were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the country’s population and who had been elected with fewer cumulative votes than the senators who opposed the nominations. Not surprisingly, public approval of the court stands at less than 40%, a historic low; and
WHEREAS:
The court majority’s lack of accountability has resulted in shocking ethics violations. Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted millions of dollars in gifts and trips from right-wing billionaires, arranged by the longtime leader of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, who also arranged for Thomas’s wife to be paid tens of thousands of dollars via transfers from a nonprofit organization. Justice Alito accepted a trip on a private plane owned by a billionaire and did not disclose the gift. Alito also failed to recuse himself from a Supreme Court case involving the same billionaire. Both Thomas and Alito have taken part in deliberations and decisions despite conflicts presented by their spouses’ activities; and
WHEREAS:
House Resolution 3973, the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) with 42 cosponsors, would strengthen ethics rules in the judicial branch including regulating gifts, mandating reporting and expressing the view of Congress that judicial ethics rules should also apply to Supreme Court justices; and
WHEREAS:
President Biden has announced a reform plan for the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That AFSCME will work to actively counter the extreme ideological bent of and power grab by the current court majority as it is harmful to the interests of workers, families and communities and antithetical to the democratic principles of our nation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That AFSCME supports Supreme Court reforms including term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED:
That AFSCME will inform its members and the American people of the damage that this extremely ideological and unrestrained Supreme Court has done to working families, our economy and our nation, and encourage Americans to vote for candidates committed to a balance of powers in our government, and to freedom and opportunity in our society.
SUBMITTED BY:
International Executive Board