The Rise of Judicial Nihilism

The US Supreme Court has been criticized for its increasingly partisan decisions, but a more insidious trend has emerged: the court’s willingness to justify racist policies by ignoring or downplaying their explicit animus. This trend is evident in the Roberts Court’s handling of voting rights, immigration, and national security cases.

In 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts claimed to have repudiated the Korematsu v. United States decision, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. However, by upholding the Trump administration’s travel ban targeting mostly Muslim countries, Roberts effectively replicated the logic of Korematsu: that government actions are justified if they can be rationalized as necessary for national security, regardless of their racist motivations.

The court’s jurisprudence echoes the infamous Dred Scott decision, which held that African Americans were not citizens and could be treated as property. However, Korematsu v. United States remains a more apt comparison, given the Supreme Court’s continued deference to government actions justified by racism. Writing on behalf of the majority in Korematsu, Justice Hugo Black argued that the internment of Japanese Americans was not motivated by racial prejudice, but rather by military necessity.

The government’s own documents and testimony have consistently shown this to be a gross misrepresentation. The Supreme Court’s failure to confront this reality is disturbing, especially given its repeated references to Korematsu as a grave injustice. This trend is not new to the Roberts Court, but it has become increasingly brazen under its watch.

The Neo-Korematsu Doctrine has significant implications for American democracy. By ignoring or downplaying racist motivations, the court effectively greenlights government policies that target marginalized communities based on their identity. This undermines the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution and emboldens future generations to justify similar actions.

What’s at stake here is not just a matter of constitutional interpretation but also the very fabric of American society. When the Supreme Court fails to confront racism and bigotry, it sends a message that these attitudes are acceptable – or at least tolerable – in our country. This has real-world consequences: from the erosion of voting rights to the perpetuation of systemic inequality.

The stakes are high, but so too are the possibilities. We can choose to confront the racism and bigotry perpetuated by government policies, or we can continue down a path of judicial nihilism that erodes the very foundations of American democracy. The choice is ours – and it’s time to make it clear where we stand.