Shocking Report Unveils Supreme Court Corruption: More Than We Ever Knew!

Last year, a draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito emerged that sought to dismiss federal charges against many of the individuals who participated in the violent January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. This ruling in Fischer v. United States hadn’t yet been made public. However, an unexpected report from The New York Times revealed that Alito himself had flown the insurrection flag at his residence. He briefly attributed it to his wife’s fondness for flag displays. Shortly after, it was revealed that similar flags were raised at his vacation property as well.

Uncomfortable? Grounds for stepping down? A reason to reconsider the ruling? Not at all. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts discreetly removed Alito’s name from the opinion, replacing it with his own.

This astonishing revelation is just one of many unearthed in a story by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak published in The New York Times last weekend. The shocking news was swiftly overshadowed by other pressing events—the apprehension of a gunman outside Donald Trump’s golf course, continued defamation efforts by former President Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) against the Haitian immigrant community in a small Ohio city, among other things.

The Supreme Court’s overstepping throughout American history has always provoked a reaction.

However, we must not let these alarming revelations fade into obscurity. They provide a stark and unforgettable portrayal of how John Roberts, despite his supposed commitment to “institutionalism” and impartiality in ruling on “balls and strikes,” manipulated the court to protect Trump from being held responsible for his actions.

Call me naïve. At the start of this year, I thought I understood the court. I had recently published a strongly critical book, The Supermajority. Yet I believed, with some certainty, that the court was a conservative one, aligned with the Federalist Society or Republican party—but not a MAGA court. Its rulings had yet to show leniency towards Trump.

Like many legal observers, I assumed the justices would allow Trump’s trial to proceed. I even thought it could be a unanimous decision, with Roberts orchestrating a unified court stance on significant issues of presidential power and constitutional law. This would align with the actions of past chief justices, most notably Warren Burger in United States v. Nixon, a case involving the Watergate tapes that closely mirrors the Trump trial ruling.

After all, it seemed, Trump v. United States was a straightforward legal matter. In fact, the potential for criminal charges was the stated reason why Republican senators did not vote to convict him in his second impeachment trial related to the January 6 charges.

Many of us also suspected a deal was in the works—a unanimous ruling that Trump couldn’t be removed from the ballot by one state under the 14th Amendment and a principled ruling on the criminal trial.

However, behind the court’s velvet curtain, no such deal existed. Roberts penned a memo in February—before the court had even announced it would hear Trump’s appeal—stating that the court would hand the former president a significant victory. “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. As Kantor and Liptak summarized, “In other words: grant Mr. Trump increased protection from prosecution.”

They further described numerous other instances where Roberts manipulated rulings in Trump’s favor. He excluded Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling was hasty and protected a broad range of potential presidential misconduct. The Times highlighted that NYU Law professor Trevor Morrison discovered Roberts selectively edited a quote from an important previous ruling to aid Trump.

The final ruling essentially tells future presidents that they can violate the law, blatantly and openly. As long as they plot with other government officials, they will be effectively shielded. (Direct your White House counsel to make hush payments, as Richard Nixon did, not your campaign manager, and you’ll escape punishment.)

This ruling has been widely and rightly criticized as one of the worst in American history—a tear in the constitutional fabric. The Times’ account makes it clear that this wasn’t some perplexing anomaly. Rather, it’s the most significant, most public, and perhaps most impactful of a series of actions undertaken by a compromised court. It follows decisions like Citizens United, Shelby County, and others that systematically dismantled key democratic protections.

Throughout American history, Supreme Court overreach has always elicited a response. Dred Scott did in the 1850s—it even contributed to a civil war. Reactionary rulings like Lochner did in the early 20th century. Trump v. United States should join the Dobbs abortion rights ruling in inciting a similar backlash today.

We’ve advocated for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, because no individual should wield extensive public power indefinitely. We’ve also recommended a binding code of ethics, which would have compelled Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from these pivotal cases. These reforms are widely favored. Most recently, a Fox News poll this summer found that 78% support term limits.

The court is a damaged institution. It’s time to repair it. The latest revelations serve as a reminder that otherwise, the system is rigged.