Lawless

1. The Supreme Court Operates on Conservative Grievance and Political Vibes, Not Just Neutral Law.

Except… it is that ridiculous. The Supreme Court is running on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes.

Beyond the law. The book argues that the Supreme Court, particularly its Republican-appointed majority, is not a neutral arbiter of law but is instead driven by the political sentiments and grievances of the conservative movement. This perspective suggests that judicial decisions are less about objective legal interpretation and more about advancing a specific ideological agenda rooted in a sense of victimhood and a desire to restore a perceived lost status.

Conservative grievance mindset. This mindset insists that conservatives are being unfairly treated by an increasingly diverse society that no longer shares their views. Examples cited include:

• Ginni Thomas claiming conservatives are "tired of being the oppressed minority."
• Justices arguing that allowing gay marriage marginalizes those with "traditional ideas."
• Republicans feeling wronged by dwindling support for their views on feminism, race, and democracy.

Vibes over facts. The author contends that these feelings and "bad vibes" are translated into legal opinions that resemble "Republican fan fiction," mixing law, fantasy, and "alternative facts." This approach allows justices to prioritize their innermost feelings or the atmosphere of conservative gatherings over conventional legal sources, leading to outcomes that align with partisan talking points rather than established legal principles.

2. The Court's Decisions Systematically Roll Back Rights for Historically Marginalized Groups.

As this suggests, the Supreme Court is extremely powerful. It is also poorly understood. The combination makes the Court pretty dangerous.

Targeting civil rights. The book highlights a pattern where the Court's conservative majority consistently issues decisions that diminish the rights and standing of groups that have historically faced discrimination. This includes:

• Overturning the constitutional right to abortion.
• Chipping away at protections against discrimination for LGBT individuals.
• Dismantling key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Undermining equality. These decisions are presented not as isolated legal interpretations but as part of a broader project to reverse progress made during earlier civil rights movements. The author argues that the Court is actively working to dismantle the civil rights of historically marginalized groups, often by reinterpreting laws and constitutional provisions in ways that disadvantage these populations and favor conservative interests.

Real-world harm. The consequences of these rulings are depicted as causing tangible harm to real people. Examples include:

• Women being denied medically necessary abortions and suffering severe health consequences or death.
• Businesses being allowed to discriminate against LGBT individuals based on religious objections.
• Voters facing increased barriers to accessing the ballot box.

3. Minority Rule in the Political System Enables the Court's Increasingly Fringe Agenda.

The short answer is the politics of minority rule.

Insulation from the majority. The book argues that the Supreme Court's insulation from democratic accountability (justices are appointed for life) is exacerbated by structural features of the U.S. political system that enable minority rule. These features allow a political minority to gain and wield power disproportionate to its popular support.

Mechanisms of minority rule:

• Electoral College: Allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, enabling the appointment of justices favored by a minority of voters.
• Senate Representation: Gives states with small populations the same number of senators as large states, meaning senators representing a minority of the population can confirm judicial nominees.
• Judicial Appointments: Justices are appointed, not elected, and serve for life, making them unresponsive to shifts in public opinion or electoral outcomes.

Fringe positions elevated. This system allows a political party representing a minority of the country to appoint justices who reflect increasingly fringe positions. The author points out that Republican appointees confirmed by senators representing less than a majority of Americans have been instrumental in decisions that are widely unpopular with the public, such as overturning Roe v. Wade.

4. Legal Theories and Jargon Are Used to Mask the Court's Political Project.

Jargon-heavy rules and interpretive methods (textualism! originalism! semantic canons!) seem to suggest “Well, you normies just don’t understand, so leave it to us law wizards.”

Obscuring the agenda. The book suggests that the Court uses complex legal terminology and interpretive methods to create an illusion of neutrality and expertise, making its decisions seem apolitical and beyond the understanding of ordinary citizens. This "shell game" makes it harder for the public to recognize the political nature of the Court's jurisprudence.

Overlap with political philosophy. The author argues that these legal methods are not neutral tools but often align with and advance specific political projects. Examples include:

• Originalism: A method focused on restoring the past, which can align with a political project seeking to return to a time with more rigid social hierarchies.
• Major Questions Doctrine: An interpretive theory that places a thumb on the scale against corporate regulation, aligning with the Republican preference for limited government and less industry oversight.

"Law wizards" facade. By framing decisions in terms of these technical methods, the Court can dismiss public criticism as a lack of understanding, reinforcing the idea that only legal experts can grasp the complexities of constitutional law. However, the book contends that the overlap between these methods and partisan political goals is often significant and intentional.

5. The Overturning of Roe v. Wade Represents a "Ken-surrection" to Restore Patriarchy.

The Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate a woman’s right to reproductive freedom was a Ken-surrection—a move to restore a patriarchy where men are on top.

Reversing progress. The book frames the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs as a deliberate effort to roll back women's rights and restore a patriarchal social order. This decision is seen as the opening salvo in a broader fight against feminism and women's sexual liberation.

Historical roots. The author traces the origins of this "Ken-surrection" to America's history of patriarchy and the backlash against the feminist movement. The resistance to women's full participation in economic, social, and political life, and the discomfort with women's control over their fertility, fueled a political strategy that targeted reproductive rights.

Originalism as a tool. The book argues that Republican justices channeled these anti-feminist sentiments through the jurisprudential method of originalism. By insisting that the Constitution only protects rights "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition," the Court could justify denying women rights they did not possess in the 1700s and 1800s, effectively making the patriarchy "great again."

6. The Court Is Dismantling LGBT Equality Based on Conservative Grievance and False Claims of Victimhood.

Over time, the Supreme Court’s decisions came to embrace these feelings. In 2023, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Republican justices relied on the First Amendment to hold that states could not prohibit a wedding website designer from discriminating against weddings that celebrated same-sex marriages.

Undoing equality. The book argues that the Court is actively undoing legal protections for the LGBT community, often by reinterpreting civil rights laws and the First Amendment. Decisions like 303 Creative are presented as examples where the Court inverts concepts of discrimination, treating efforts to guarantee equality for LGBT people as discrimination against religious conservatives.

Conservative "burn book". This approach is fueled by a "conservative grievance" narrative that portrays religious and social conservatives as victims of a "Big Gay Conspiracy" and societal progress on LGBT rights. The author highlights how figures like Anita Bryant and Justice Scalia have voiced fears that the mere existence of LGBT people threatens opponents of equality.

Weaponizing the First Amendment. The Court is using the First Amendment, particularly religious freedom and free speech claims, as a vehicle to chip away at anti-discrimination laws. By framing refusal to serve LGBT individuals as protected speech or religious exercise, the Court legitimizes discrimination while insisting that religious conservatives are the real oppressed group in need of judicial protection.

7. The Court Undermines Voting Rights to Consolidate Minority Political Power.

Shelby County ended one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement—a key Voting Rights Act protection that blocked voter discrimination by requiring certain states to preclear changes in their voting policies with the federal government.

Attacking democracy. The book contends that the Court is actively working to dismantle voting rights protections, particularly those benefiting racial minorities, as part of a long-standing effort by white Southern conservatives and the Republican Party to maintain political power through minority rule. The decision in Shelby County is highlighted as a pivotal moment in this project.

Resurrecting old arguments. The author shows how the Court's reasoning echoes arguments used by segregationists and Republican politicians like Nixon and Reagan against the Voting Rights Act. These arguments frame voting rights protections as unfair regional punishment or "racial entitlements," ignoring the history of violent voter suppression and the need to address ongoing discrimination.

Enabling suppression and gerrymandering. By weakening the VRA and refusing to address partisan gerrymandering (Rucho v. Common Cause), the Court has enabled states to enact policies that disproportionately disenfranchise voters of color and dilute minority voting power. This makes it harder for voters to hold politicians accountable and entrenches the power of a political minority.

8. The Court Enables Oligarchy by Allowing Wealthy Donors Outsize Influence in Politics.

The result? A government of, by, and for the rich.

Money equals speech. The book argues that the Court's campaign finance decisions, particularly Citizens United, have dismantled regulations designed to limit the influence of wealth in politics. By equating money with speech and striking down limits on corporate and individual political spending, the Court has created a system where the mega-rich can buy disproportionate influence and access.

Ignoring corruption. The author criticizes the Court's narrow definition of corruption, which largely ignores the reality that massive political spending and access can lead to undue influence and favor-trading. Decisions like McDonnell v. United States are cited as examples where the Court dismisses actions that appear corrupt as merely "how politics works."

A broligarchy. This jurisprudence creates an "oligarchy" or "broligarchy" where political officials are more accountable to wealthy donors than to ordinary voters. The book highlights the vast sums of dark money flowing into politics and the unparalleled access wealthy donors like Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers gain to political leaders, including the justices themselves.

9. The Court Attacks the Administrative State to Benefit Industry and Limit Government.

In 2022, Gorsuch and five other Republican justices announced a jurisprudential theory, the major questions doctrine, that embodies Republicans’ deregulatory philosophy.

War on government. The book describes the Court's campaign against the federal administrative state (agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc.) as part of a broader Republican political philosophy of limited government and less industry regulation. This project seeks to dismantle the parts of government responsible for implementing complex policies and protecting public health, safety, and the environment.

Deregulatory doctrines. The Court is using new or revived jurisprudential theories to hobble agencies. Examples include:

• Major Questions Doctrine: Requires Congress to "speak clearly" when authorizing agencies to make "major" or controversial regulations, effectively creating a presumption against significant agency action.
• Overruling Chevron: Eliminates judicial deference to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, shifting interpretive power to the courts, which are often hostile to regulation.

Prioritizing industry interests. The author argues that these doctrines are designed to benefit corporate interests seeking to avoid regulation. By transferring decision-making power from expert agencies to generalist courts, the Court ensures that ambiguities in law are resolved in favor of deregulation, even when it contradicts statutory text or public need (e.g., climate change, student debt relief).

10. Fixing the Court Requires Political Action, Organizing, and Voting, Not Just Legal Arguments.

Persuading people to care about the courts is how change happens.

Beyond legal arguments. The book concludes that relying solely on legal arguments within the existing system is insufficient to address the problems with the Court. Since the Court is driven by politics and vibes, changing its trajectory requires engaging in political action outside the courtroom.

Empowering democracy. The path forward involves strengthening democratic processes and making the Court more accountable to the people. Strategies suggested include:

• Voting: Participating in every election at every level (local, state, federal) to elect politicians who will appoint different kinds of judges.
• Advocacy and Organizing: Talking to friends, family, and networks about the importance of the courts and pressuring politicians to prioritize judicial appointments and potential reforms.
• Court Reform: Advocating for structural changes like term limits or Court expansion to rebalance the judiciary and limit its ability to obstruct democracy.

Learning from opponents. The author suggests learning from the Republican legal movement's success in using long-term political strategy, organizing, and grievance to achieve its goals. While rejecting their antidemocratic tactics, progressives can adopt their focus and persistence to build a constituency for a more democratic and accountable judiciary.

Last updated: August 12, 2025