This week, the Supreme Court issued a ghastly ruling that threatens to restrict mail-in ballots. While the Court did not outright rule in favor of Trump’s goal to end mail-in ballot voting despite the fact that he votes by mail himself, it ruled that the states challenging him did not have the right to do so. This opens the door to further challenges to mail-in voting rights, especially ahead of a critical midterm election in which Trump knows that losing the House and the Senate will lock him into a lame duck presidency for the rest of his term.
Before I dive into the painful receipts below, an observation. Isn’t it funny how “states rights” is talk of the town when the Supreme Court is restricting abortion access, expanding gun access, and gutting public education—but suddenly there are no “states rights” when it comes to states seeking to protect voting access for their residents? This isn’t a bug—but the feature of the US Supreme Court. And not just a contemporary feature, but how SCOTUS has behaved throughout American history.
A year ago this week, on a shadow docket 6-3 opinion written by credibly accused rapist Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's ICE fascists can use ethnicity as a ‘relevant factor’ when furnishing reasonable suspicion to detain people, specifically citing Latino ethnicity. Notably, the Supreme Court made no mention of the ~600,000 mostly white Canadian and European undocumented immigrants in the United States.
This same Supreme Court previously stopped Affirmative Action to “ban targeting based on race.” Yet they continued to allow legacy admissions, allow white Afrikaaner "refugees," allow over-policing of Black communities, and allow bans on Afghan refugees and South Korean workers. Apparently it is okay to target based on race to give white people an undue advantage, or to discriminate against Black and brown people, but not to ensure Black and brown people have an equal opportunity.
Meanwhile, I keep hearing comments alleging that this Supreme Court has now dishonored a once honorable Court. The truth is actually far worse than that. This Supreme Court’s extremism is not an aberration, but a manifestation, of Supreme Court extremism throughout U.S. history. The receipts are devastating and ignored by corporate media, but it is critical we shed this collective amnesia if we hope to move forward. Should Democrats ever retake the House, Senate, and White House, expanding the Supreme Court to uphold justice is not just wise, but critical to protect our Republic from total collapse. Let’s Address This.
A History of Injustice
In reality, SCOTUS has (almost) never reflected the will of the majority of American people. In fact, it has most often blocked what Americans want and voted for. And while no one article can do justice to a history that began on March 4, 1789 when the Supreme Court was first established, this snapshot provides a clear picture of what we’re up against, and why this is unsustainable.
19th Century Injustice
Let’s start in 1857, with Dred Scott v. Sanford. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that Black people are subhuman and therefore cannot be citizens. This ruling prevented a peaceful or legal solution to ending slavery, and historians cite this case as one of the final straws that likely enabled the eventual Civil War. At least 600,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. The subsequent Jim Crow laws and the harm they cause reverberate to this day.
In 1883, the Court advanced this racist policy with The Civil Rights Cases. Most Americans don’t realize that some 90 years before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to mandate equal justice for Black Americans. Instead, SCOTUS ruled 8–1 that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, and that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not actually provide equal protection to Black people. Hence Jim Crow laws were not only valid, but now had full mandate to strengthen and advance as Black Codes. This barbarity would stay on the books until 1964, devastating generations of Black Americans.
In 1896, the Court further enforced Black Codes under Plessy v. Ferguson. SCOTUS ruled 7-1 that mandatory racial segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment. This further advanced Black codes, Jim Crow, economic, housing, and educational disenfranchisement. This SCOTUS ruling further strengthened the KKK and white supremacy. The KKK grew so powerful as a result of rulings like Plessy, that by 1920 they were 4 million member strong, and at least 1 in every 11 white Americans was a card carrying member.
Side Note: But Qasim! Some might argue. That was a long time ago in the 19th century! Surely you can’t be serious that the 20th and 21st century was that bad?
In response I’d say, I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley. And keep reading to see.
20th Century Injustice
In 1918, the Court embraced child abuse via child labor in Hammer v. Dagenhart. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that Congress could not ban child labor in intrastate commerce, calling it a "states rights" issue. Sound familiar? As we see labor cases come before SCOTUS today, and see GOP led states pass laws enabling child labor, remember this history of enabling child labor and child abuse. For example, right now in 2025 Florida is pushing to loosen child labor laws to allow 14-year-old children to enter the work force and even work overnight shifts. Again, what we are seeing today is not new, but a revival of yesteryear extremism.
In 1924, the court targeted Asian Americans directly in Thind v. United States. SCOTUS ruled unanimously, 9-0, that though a Sikh American named Bhagat Thind was Aryan per the U.S. then phrenological and eugenicist pseudoscience definition of white, he did not meet a "common sense" definition of white—and therefore could not be a citizen. This ruling helped uphold a 1924 total ban on all Asian immigration. That ban would remain on the books for another 41 years until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act ended these racist race based quotas. It’s worth noting that for much of American history, while Black, Latino, and Asian immigration was heavily restricted or outright banned, white European immigration was largely encouraged via open borders.
Side Note: When you hear white MAGAs scream “immigrants should come here legally,” know that their own ancestors arrived here illegally per their own made up definition of legality and illegality.
The 1927, Supreme Court continued its eugenics streak in Buck v. Bell. SCOTUS ruled 8-1 to uphold a Virginia eugenics law targeting Black people. States nationwide would then adopt this ruling and craft their own state laws. As a result, more than 60,000 Black women, men, and children as young as 10 were forcibly sterilized—which we now recognize as a textbook definition of genocide. Perhaps just as horrifying is that as of 2025 Buck v. Bell remains valid Supreme Court precedent as no subsequent SCOTUS ruling has ever overturned it. Given how the Trump regime is using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to disappear brown migrants, I do not put it past him to use the 1927 Buck v. Bell ruling to revive genocide of Black Americans.
In 1944, while American soldiers fought fascism abroad, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of fascism in Korematsu v. United States. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 to uphold President FDR's Executive Order 9066 that forcibly interned 120,000 Japanese Americans. Though America was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy—only Japanese Americans suffered mass arrest and deprivation of property. In broad daylight, our government spoke of the evils of Hitler’s concentration camps, while placing American citizens in concentration camps of our own—reminding everyone once more that Hitler got his ideas for concentration camps from the British Boer camps and from American Jim Crow. (The must read book on this topic is Hitler’s American Model by Professor James Q. Whitman).
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick to condemn queer Americans. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to uphold a Georgia statute criminalizing even private LGBTQ relationships. Though finally overruled in Lawrence v Texas in 2005, anti-sodomy laws still exist in several states, anti-LGBTQ violence and rhetoric remains at record highs, and it is getting worse.
Side Note:
Far from improving significantly over the 19th century, in the 20th century the Supreme Court openly supported white supremacy, abusive child labor practices, anti-Asian immigration bans, eugenics, genocide, fascism, and anti-LGBTQ bigotry. And while we celebrate the Civil Rights acts passed in the 20th century, we’ve seen a massive regression of those very laws in the 21st century. So, if you thought the 21st century Court was better than past eras, read on, because sadly, it is not.
21st Century Injustice
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore, denying American people their vote. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of GW Bush, handing him the presidency. This was despite Al Gore winning the popular vote by more than 500K votes. Bush then bankrupted our surplus, cut billionaire taxes, left America trillions in debt, and waged two failed wars that cost more than $6 trillion and killed tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians. I bring up Bush’s atrocious record to document the consequences of the Supreme Court installing someone the American people voted against.
In 2008, the Supreme Court voted to devastated our climate and prop up corporate corruption in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. SCOTUS ruled 5-3 to protect Exxon from punitive damages in which a drunk operator spilled 11 million gallons of oil into an ecological sensitive sound. SCOTUS dropped the fine from $5 billion to only $500 million, boosting Exxon's value by $23 billion. It is worth noting that Justice Alito owned Exxon stock and profited massively from the Court’s ruling.
In 2010, the Supreme Court helped ensure we’d never have a free and fair election again by ruling on Citizens United v. FEC. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment protects political donations as "free speech," opening elections to billions in dark money to buy and sell politicians. Though an astounding 83% of Americans—Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike—want corporate money out of politics, SCOTUS does not care. As a result of this overt power to buy elections, billionaires spent $1.2B in the 2020 election, which is an astounding 70 times more than what they spent in the 2008 election—pre-Citizens United. In the 2024 election, maniacal billionaire Elon Musk spent $175M of his own money to elect Trump, and is now wielding that influence to gut life critical departments including HHS, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and more. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensured corrupt corporate funded politicians stay in power with ease, State and Congressional level gerrymandering becomes the norm, and gave the wealthy a nearly insurmountable advantage to stay in office.
In 2013, the Supreme Court further eroded our elections in Shelby County v. Holder by stripping down voting rights. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1964—specifically provisions that prevented historically discriminatory states and counties from disenfranchising BIPOC voters. Unsurprinsgly, after Shelby, red states closed thousands of polling locations in disproportionately BIPOC neighborhoods, affecting turnout and flipping elections red. GOP states have subsequently introduced hundreds of voter suppression bills, passing dozens, further marginalizing Black, brown, and low income voters. In fact, since the Shelby ruling, red states have closed more than 100,000 polling locations in disproportionately low income, Black, and Latino neighborhoods. Modern day Jim Crow by any other name.
In 2016, the Supreme Court advanced government tyranny in Utah v. Strieff. SCOTUS ruled 5-3 to permit police to admit evidence in a criminal trial even if it was procured by illegal searches—despite 4th Amendment ban on illegal government searches. This ruling particularly targets BIPOC communities who already face at least six times higher charge/arrest rates than do white Americans. Now, police officers can more easily procure evidence through illegal means, blurring the line between the right to privacy, and making it more difficult to stop bad police actors from planting evidence or even targeting citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This ruling was a boost for fascism and for the private prison industry.
In 2018, the Supreme Court advanced religious bigotry in Trump v. Hawaii. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to uphold Trump's racist and discriminatory "Muslim Ban." A ban he admitted was designed to cause as much harm as possible, and one he could not prove had any national security value. So much for US Constitution's ban on religious tests.
In 2021, the Supreme Court shockingly defended child slavery in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I. SCOTUS ruled near unanimously, 8-1, that children kidnapped, enslaved and forced to go to the Ivory Coast to produce for American corporate giants like Nestle, could not sue Nestle for damages for enabling child slave labor. Yes, it is as horrific as it sounds. Nearly 175 years after ruling in Dred Scott that enslaved Black people are subhuman and therefore unworthy of protection from exploitation by American corporations, the Court found a way to rule in Nestle that enslaved African children are unworthy of protection from exploitation by American corporations.
In 2022, the Supreme Court undid half a century of precedent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that women do not have autonomy over their own bodies. The Court repealed Roe—despite 72% of Americans favoring Roe, despite all the data that abortion bans do not decrease abortion rates but increase maternal mortality by 24%. The Court repealed Roe, despite four justices—Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—affirming that they viewed Roe as settled law, settled precedent, and the law of the land.
In 2023, the Supreme Court repealed Affirmative Action. The SCOTUS ignored the clearly racist Legacy Admissions policy which disproportionately benefits wealthy white people, but gutted Affirmative Action because it marginally helps Black and brown people (even though the single largest demographic of people who benefit from Affirmative Action are white women—more than Black, Latino, Indigenous, and Asian people combined).
In 2024, the Supreme Court granted Presidents virtually unlimited immunity. SCOTUS ruled on the question of whether Trump has immunity as President from accountability for otherwise criminal acts, and essentially granted him near unlimited immunity. So much for no Kings?
And now in 2025, the Supreme Court tacitly approves the destruction of Due Process as Trump disappears immigrants. Justice Sotomayor wrote in her scathing dissent of this fascist ruling:
The Government takes the position that, even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from the Salvadoran prisons to which it has sent them. The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.
The Future of SCOTUS Injustice
Indeed, the 21st century SCOTUS has largely continued the SCOTUS trend of the 19th and 20th centuries of ruling against the will of the American people, and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. In addition to overturning presidential elections, stripping down voting rights, destroying our climate, devastating the right to privacy, and destroying personal bodily autonomy, SCOTUS in the 21st century has also further enabled wrongful incarceration, further dissolved religion/state separation, further decreased safety from gun violence, further enabled discrimination for being Queer, stripped down affirmative action and racial justice in education and the work place, and further harmed economic justice for students suffering under predatory loans.
Again, I could go on.
But I believe I’ve made the point. And history reminds us what’s at stake. I’ve long argued that we must enforce term limits and expand the Court—and indeed Biden could have made that push but chose not to.
Conclusion
When the Court overruled the 1875 Civil Rights cases, it took nearly a century—until 1964—for those rights to finally be codified once more. Now, only 60 years later those rights are once again being stripped down piece by piece—by the Supreme Court no less. Who knows how long it will take us to recover? Indeed this is why the late great John Lewis said:
Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.
Whether by organizing, donating, volunteering, voting, or by subscribing to this human rights newsletter to help me combat disinformation, or all of the above, let us do our part to protect and preserve our democracy for this generation, and the next. Because far from protecting our rights, we can tragically only count on the current Supreme Court to be among the greatest obstacles to justice in America.
Qasim Rashid is a human rights attorney, author, and host of Let’s Address This—a platform dedicated to human rights, accountability, and the fight against the disinformation and hate that corporate media refuses to name. Subscribe, share, and let’s remain relentless in our mission for a more perfect Union.
By popular demand, rather than a monthly subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution to support our human rights platform at any amount that fits your budget.
Thank you, Qasim, for this detailed synopsis of SCOTUS rulings and the detrimental effects on many Americans, predominantly People of Color. The rise of the rich controlling our country, eroding the rights of women, children and voters.
I am saving this post for future reference. Thanks.
Appointing judges who rule with impunity for life is opening the gate to all this injustice. We need to set mandatory retirement requirements (80?), an enforceable Code of Ethics and liaison relationships between the three government powers. We also need a process to impeach judges, at all levels.