Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A packed court would neuter judicial independence and strengthen the president

Opinion

U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Strand is president of the Congressional Institute, a nonprofit that seeks to help members of Congress better serve their constituents and their constituents better understand Congress.

Congressional observers will remember Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous remark when the fate of the Obamacare bill was on the line a decade ago: The House needed to "pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

Now former Vice President Joe Biden's refusal to tell the nation his views on court-packing, unless he wins the presidency, is a reminder of those poorly chosen words.

Court-packing is adding seats to the Supreme Court or other benches, not replacing an open seat. A court-packing scheme would be a massive shift in power from the judiciary to the executive branch, one that eliminates one of the most important safeguards built into our Constitution. Over several decades, Congress has steadily ceded power to the president by ignoring its oversight mandate, not making tough budget decisions, handing over spending prerogatives and allowing administrations of both parties to substitute regulations for legislative action.

Court-packing would be a fundamental shift of judicial independence that leads down a very dangerous road to excessive executive power — because it would mean presidents could add politically sympathetic members until the Supreme Court is little more than a rubber stamp of the personal partisan policy preferences of the president.

And if a future president acquires the bulk of the powers the Constitution gave not only Congress but also the Supreme Court, such a dangerous amount of concentrated power would undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In the fall of 2013, when Democrats were the Senate majority and eliminated the effective 60-vote threshold for almost all nominations, Mitch McConnell was the Republican minority leader warning the other side "you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." This week, of course, it was the GOP leveraging its majority power to seat Amy Coney Barrett on the high court just days before the election — and the minority Democrats crying foul and warning the other side it will rue the day.

But confirming judges to existing open seats is not court-packing. Court-packing means creating new judicial positions and filling them with judges believed to be on "your" side. This is what threatens the delicate balance between our three branches. Consider this: A federal court rules an executive order is unlawful, and the president gets a Congress run by his party to add three seats to the Supreme Court — so he can name justices he can count on to overturn that original ruling. That is court-packing. And it is dangerous to create a rubber stamp on one party's rule in Washington.

Every campaign season, the parties and outside groups square off for what they agree will be The Most Important Election Ever. That's led to voter fatigue, which is compounded by the media's shiny-object coverage that leaves people lurching from one story to the next. A recent report by my organization concluded that independent voters are weary of political rhetoric. They want clear plans, clear ideas and clear approaches to solving the very big challenges we're facing.

The Constitution establishes a government that makes laws to protect the entire community, without infringing on the rights of individuals. As George Washington wrote in his letter transmitting the completed Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. ... It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which must be reserved."

This is the role of the Supreme Court, which the Framers established as an independent protector of individual rights against the legislative will of the majority, or the arbitrary use of power by the executive. A Supreme Court subjected to court-packing would surrender its independence and be judicially neutered.

Beyond that lies the real threat of the partisan minority's voice in governing getting totally silenced — if the ability to filibuster legislation gets suddenly neutralized in the Senate next year, the way judicial filibusters were made obsolete seven years ago.

That would be terrible for a country so closely split between the major parties as we have been for more than two decades.

Such an arrangement, if backed up by a newly packed Supreme Court, would allow the political majority to weaken other safeguards, such as control of redistricting and the admission of new states, that would further solidify its own control over the government. Citizens objecting to unconstitutional actions by the executive would be without recourse, because appeals to the Supreme Court would be futile.

Court-packing would be a massive gain for the concentration of presidential power and allow a dangerous amount of control by one party. It threatens to replace our two-party government, operating under a system of checks and balances, with an increasingly authoritarian executive backed up by a dominant majority with no meaningful opposition to act as a brake on his power.

Even the most partisan Democrats should be concerned about eliminating the independence of the judiciary. While they could bend the court into a willing participant in passing the most radical aspects of their legislative agenda, they do so at the risk of eliminating the essential safeguard to their own constitutional rights. History is replete with examples of power grabs that have gone bad — and there are very few examples of the rapid and excessive concentration of power that have turned out well.

Packing the court is a serious constitutional issue, demanding serious answers from the Democratic presidential challenger before it's too late. We cannot accept the notion that we need to wait for it to happen to see what it means.

Read More

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

An armed law enforcement agent sits in an armored vehicle as residents of Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood confront law enforcement at a gas station after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents allegedly detained an unidentified man riding in his car, in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 4, 2025.

(AFP via Getty Images)

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

A masked, federal agent in combat uniform leans out the passenger window of a Jeep and points a military rifle directly at the face of a U.S. citizen in Chicago, simply for recording him.

It should send a chill down every American’s spine. President Trump’s revenge on America’s liberal cities is an authoritarian abuse of power. Americans in 2025 should not have to live in police states or with the National Guard patrolling their streets or pointing weapons at them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

People rally around a group of interfaith clergy members as they hold a press conference downtown to denounce the Trump administration's proposed immigration sweeps in the city on Sept. 8, 2025 in Chicago.

Scott Olson, Getty Images

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

When presidents deploy the National Guard, it’s usually to handle hurricanes, riots, or disasters. Donald Trump has found a darker use for it: punishing political opponents.

Over recent months, Trump has sent federalized Guard units into Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and now Chicago—where roughly 300 Illinois Guardsmen have been federalized and another 400 troops brought in from Texas. He calls it “law and order,” but the pattern is clear: Democratic-led cities are being targeted as enemy territory. Governors and mayors have objected, but Trump is testing how far he can stretch Title 10, the section of U.S. law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard in limited cases of invasion or rebellion—a law meant for national crisis, not political theater.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Are Chicago

Thousands of protesters packed Daley Plaza and marched through the streets of Chicago, April 05, 2025.

Photo by Barry Brecheisen/Getty Images for Community Change Action

We Are Chicago

Just after 1 a.m. on Chicago’s South Side, residents woke to pounding on doors, smoke in the hallways, and armed federal agents flooding their building. The raid was part of a broader immigration crackdown that has brought Border Patrol and ICE teams into the city using SWAT-style tactics. Journalists documented door breaches and dozens detained; federal officials confirmed at least 37 arrests on immigration charges. Residents described chaos, kids in shock, and damaged apartments. As of this writing, none of the 37 arrested have been charged with violent crimes or proven ties to the Tren de Aragua gang—the stated target. (Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times)

City and state leaders are pushing back. Chicago’s mayor created “ICE-free zones” on city property, limiting access without a warrant. Illinois and Chicago then sued to block the administration’s plan to add National Guard troops to “protect federal assets” and support federal operations, calling the move unlawful and escalatory. The legal fight is active; the state has asked courts to stop what it calls an “invasion.” (AP News, TIME)

Keep ReadingShow less
Laredo at the Crossroads of Border Policy

Laredo police car

Credit: Ashley Soriano

Laredo at the Crossroads of Border Policy

LAREDO, Texas — The United States Border Patrol has deployed military Stryker combat tanks along the Rio Grande River in Laredo, Texas. The Laredo Police Department reports that human stash houses — once a common sight during the Biden administration — have largely disappeared. And the Webb County medical examiner reports fewer migrant deaths.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection data show illegal crossings have dropped to a five-year low under President Donald Trump’s mass deportation policies. What’s happening on the ground at the border supports the numbers, and the decline is palpable at Dr. Corinne Stern’s office, as migrant deaths are also falling.

Keep ReadingShow less