In a recent speech, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the importance of judicial independence in the United States. According to the Constitution, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government with the power to interpret the law and serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches. This independence is crucial for protecting democracy and ensuring that no branch of government exceeds its authority.

However, some legal scholars, such as Leah Litman, argue that the current Supreme Court has strayed from this ideal. In her new book Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, Litman criticizes the Court for supporting an expanded view of presidential power. She points to the Court’s embrace of the “unitary executive theory,” which allows the president broad authority over executive functions, including firing officials and making decisions that bypass traditional checks and balances.

Litman also raises concerns about the Court’s role in weakening voting rights protections. She cites the decision to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which previously required states with histories of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws. According to Litman, this decision framed those states—not the minority voters—as the victims, reflecting a deeper ideological bias in the Court.

In her view, the Supreme Court has moved away from its role as a guardian of democracy and has instead become a tool for advancing conservative political goals. Rather than acting independently, the Court has, she argues, legitimized partisan ideas and undermined civil rights protections.

This growing debate over the Court’s role raises critical questions about the future of American democracy and the true meaning of judicial independence.