IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Will the Supreme Court Stand for the Rule of Law?

In this critical hour of American history, the concept of hope hangs by a thread. For those of us who believe in the power of the Constitution and the principles upon which this nation was founded, that hope is rooted in one foundational idea: the rule of law. Without it, democracy crumbles into autocracy, and the protections of individual rights become hollow promises.

And while many of us fear that hope is all but lost, we see flickers of resistance embodied in the dedication and professionalism of judges at the trial and appellate levels. The federal judiciary below the Supreme Court is still, for now, a line of defense holding back the tide of authoritarianism.

One recent example deserves attention: Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In a case involving the Trump administration’s questionable deportation of lawful U.S. residents to Venezuela, Judge Millett demonstrated what it means to serve justice with both wisdom and courage. Her rigorous questioning of the government’s legal justifications revealed, in subtle but unmistakable terms, that she saw through the pretense. Her probing inquiry suggested that the administration had acted unlawfully. She offered a masterclass on how the judiciary can still uphold the rule of law in the face of executive overreach.

Cases like these underscore the essential role of the lower federal courts. These judges, appointed for life, still show independence and fidelity to the Constitution. They are not afraid to call out the unlawful behavior of those in power. But what happens when their rulings reach the Supreme Court?

That is where our collective anxiety lies.

The Supreme Court now sits as the final gatekeeper of American democracy. If the Court permits the executive branch to defy court orders or evade the Constitution through legalistic contortions and political maneuvering, we must ask what remains. A ruling means nothing if it is not followed. The Trump movement has made it clear that it will obey only the rulings it likes. This is not conjecture. It is a stated political position.

A government that can pick and choose which laws to obey is no longer a government of laws. It is an autocracy in disguise. If a final, binding judgment from the highest court in the land can be ignored without consequence, the American experiment will have failed. What is left is not a constitutional republic but a nation ruled by willpower, not law.

We are teetering on a precipice. Oligarchy, theocracy, anarchy, and plutocracy wait in the wings, eager to rush into the vacuum created by the collapse of judicial authority. The lower courts may resist, but their power is not ultimate. That resides with the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Should they hold the line, or should they continue to affirm the Constitution's supremacy over any individual, party, or administration, hope endures. Democracy, though battered, may yet prevail.

But if the Court bends to the will of executive power, either through cowardice, corruption, or ideological capture, then hope dies. And with it, the American ideal.

We must all be clear-eyed: the rule of law is our last defense. If it falls, we do not return to it quickly. It will take generations to restore what has been lost if it can be restored at all.

So we wait, watching, hoping for nine justices to show us whether this country still believes in law or whether we have entered the post-constitutional abyss.

William James Spriggs