The lack of legitimacy of the Supreme Court can result in political violence

As Americans prepare to rejoice the Fourth of July, they're probably considering what number of hot dogs to purchase for the barbecue and whether a member of the family should reserve a superb seat for the parade and fireworks.

While the vacation is targeted on celebration, the Fourth of July actually commemorates a celebratory moment in History of the country when it declared its independence from the colonial power Great BritainThe institutions of presidency envisioned by the Founding Fathers and their successors within the many years that followed—including the presidency, Congress, the State and Treasury departments, and the Supreme Court—have maintained their authority and legitimacy for greater than 200 years, weathering the challenges of wars at home and abroad and big economic, political, and social upheaval.

But now the Supreme Court is experiencing a series of highly controversial rulings and ethical questions on some judges historically low public statusAnd that has sparked a nationwide debate in regards to the legitimacy of the court. It is even rarely Public statement by three sitting Supreme Court justices.

What experts call the issue of “judicial legitimacy” could seem abstract, however the court’s waning public support has more to do with than simply popularity.

Declining legitimacy signifies that government officials and abnormal residents are increasingly unwilling to simply accept policies they disagree with. And Americans only must look to the recent past to know what the court's growing legitimacy problem means.

Costs “paid with blood”

The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education make clear the weak loyalty of many white Americans to the authority of the federal judiciary.

In the Brown case, the Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th AmendmentThe justices were well aware that their decision would provoke strong emotions, so Chief Justice Earl Warren worked tirelessly to make sure that the court issued a unanimous, short and readable statement Designed to Calming the expected opposition of the population.

Warren's efforts were in vain. Rather than accepting the Court's authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, many white Americans engaged in a widespread, violent campaign of resistance to the desegregation ruling.

The Integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 is a striking example of this resistance.

The Supreme Court had agreed with a lower federal court that ordered the university to confess James Mereditha black Air Force veteran. But Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett launched a comprehensive operation to stop Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss. This included deploying state and native police to stop Meredith from entering the campus.

On Sunday, September 30, 1962Meredith nevertheless arrived on the university's campus, guarded by dozens of federal marshals, to enroll and start classes the following day. A crowd of two,000 to three,000 people gathered on campus and erupted right into a riot. Meredith and the marshals were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. The marshals fired tear gas in return.

In response, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 and ordered the U.S. Army to return to campus to revive order and protect Meredith. Overnight, 1000’s of soldiers arrived and fought the rioters.

The violence finally ended after 15 hours, leaving two civilians dead – each killed by rioters – and dozens of marshals and soldiers wounded, along with a whole bunch of injured among the many insurgent mob.

The next day, October 1: Meredith enrolls on the university and attended his top notch, but 1000’s of soldiers remained in Mississippi for months to keep up order.

What some call “the Battle of Oxford“” was fueled by white racism and segregation, nevertheless it occurred against a backdrop of weak legal legitimacy. Federal courts didn’t command enough respect from state officials or abnormal white Mississippians to guard the constitutional rights of black Mississippians. Neither Governor Barnett nor the 1000’s of Oxford rioters were willing to obey the court order allowing Meredith to enroll on the university.

Ultimately, the Constitution and the federal courts prevailed only because Kennedy supported them with the assistance of the military. But the value for the weak legitimacy of the judiciary was paid in blood.

Legitimacy results in acceptance

On the opposite hand, when people imagine within the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they’re more likely to simply accept, respect, and obey the foundations that the federal government – ​​including the courts – imposes on them, even when the stakes are high and the implications are far-reaching.

For example, twenty years ago the Supreme Court ruled on a controversial presidential election in Bush vs. Gorefocused on the vote count in Florida. This time, the court was deeply divided along ideological lines, and its long, complicated and fragmented opinion was based on questionable legal arguments.

But in 2000, the court enjoyed a stronger legitimacy in the general public than today. As a result, authorities in Florida stopped recounting disputed ballots. Vice President Al Gore admitted the election of Texas Governor George W. Bush, explicit acceptance of the decisive judgment of the Supreme Court.

No Democratic Senator has challenged the validity of the disputed votes for Bush in Florida’s Electoral College. Congress confirmed the Electoral College voteAnd Bush was sworn in.

The Democrats were definitely upset, and some protestedBut the court was seen as sufficiently legitimate to have sufficient acceptance by enough people to make sure a peaceful transition of power. There was no violent rebellion; there was no open resistance.

That evening, when Gore admitted defeat, his supporters gathered outside silently accepted the result with chants: “Gore in four!“ – as if to say, “Next time we’ll get you because we believe there will be a next time.”

Risks ahead

But what happens if institutions fail to keep up the loyalty of their residents?

The rebellion of January 6, 2021 showed the implications of broken legitimacy. The rioters who stormed the Capitol had lost faith within the systems that underpin American democracy: the counting of presidential votes within the states, the counting of ballots within the Electoral College and Settlement of disputes over voting rights in court.

The men and girls who stormed the Capitol could have believed their country was being stolen, even when those beliefs were unfounded, so that they rebelled within the face of an final result they didn’t like.

The threat of further unrest is real, with polls showing the 2024 presidential election will likely be between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. is running outand the election results are more likely to be challenged in federal courts in several states. Some of those claims may raise doubts in regards to the quality of the election administration, while others make more unsubstantiated allegations designed to undermine confidence within the election final result.

Americans' confidence in a timely resolution of those cases and their peaceful acceptance of the final result of the presidential election will ultimately rely upon whether the defeated candidate's supporters recognize the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary more broadly.

Nothing is for certain in politics, however the specter of a constitutional crisis looms over the United States. It is dangerously unclear whether the Supreme Court still has enough legitimacy to make sure the acceptance of its decisions on the upcoming election by those on the losing side. If not, the Court's abstract legitimacy problem could once more result in violence and rebellion.

This story is an updated version of a story originally published on October 31, 2022.