The NYT Too Little Too late, agin

The highest court in the land has gone rouge.

The New York Times just announced they’re expanding their Supreme Court coverage. Four reporters now dedicated to piercing the secrecy of America’s most secretive institution.

Too little. Too late.

The Times is treating this like a transparency problem. Like if they just shine enough light on the justices, embarrass them a little, maybe they’ll self-correct. Maybe Roberts will finally care about his legacy. Maybe voluntary ethics reforms will kick in.

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

The Supreme Court has been waging war on working people for decades. Spoiler alert, we’ve been losing.

In 2010, the Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have First Amendment rights. That spending money is speech. So a hedge fund can spend unlimited money electing politicians who cut its taxes. You can donate a few hundred bucks. Guess whose calls get returned.

In 2013, the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. States with histories of racial discrimination used to need federal approval before changing voting rules. The Court said that was old news. Within 24 hours, Texas announced voter ID restrictions. Now if you’re Black, Latino, young, or poor, your state can make it harder for you to vote and there’s nothing the feds can do until after the damage is done.

In 2018, the Court ruled in Janus that public sector unions can’t collect fees from workers they’re legally required to represent. Forty years of precedent, gone. Teachers, firefighters, any public employee. The union negotiating your wages just lost most of its funding. Weaker unions mean lower pay. That was the point.

To expose the clearest hypocrisy, we’ll contrast how the Court treats corporate shareholders versus working-class retirees. This highlights that the Court isn’t following a consistent legal rule; it’s choosing who gets to have a day in court based on their tax bracket.

In 2020, the Court ruled in Thole v. U.S. Bank that retirees couldn’t sue their pension manager for losing $750 million through reckless investments. The logic: since they were still receiving monthly checks, they hadn’t been “injured” yet.

Compare that to how SCOTUS treats the “Investor Class.” For decades, the Court has upheld the right of corporate shareholders to file “derivative suits.” In those cases, if a CEO mismanages a company’s cash, a shareholder can sue the managers immediately to force them to put the money back. They don’t have to wait for the company to go bankrupt or for their dividend checks to bounce. The Court recognizes that if the “pot” is smaller, the investment is worth less.

So SCOTUS uses one set of logic for retired workers and another for investors. This exposes a massive, illogical double standard: If you are a shareholder, a loss in the vault is an “injury” you can stop today. If you are a retiree, a $750 million loss is a “no harm, no foul” non-event. By the time the checks actually stop, the money is gone and there is nothing left to recover. It’s a rigged game.

This isn’t just about who can sue; it’s about who actually runs the country. In 2024, the Court overturned Chevron deference. For forty years, courts deferred to agencies on technical questions. The EPA interpreted clean air rules. OSHA interpreted workplace safety. Now judges with no expertise override the experts. Every regulation protecting your air, water, workplace, and food is vulnerable to corporate lawyers shopping for friendly judges.

And then came Trump v. United States.

The Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for official acts. Justice Sotomayor wrote in dissent that this means a president could order the assassination of a political rival and face no consequences. So long as he calls it official.

The Constitution says no one is above the law. Six justices said otherwise.

Look at who wins and who loses. That’s how you understand what’s happening.

Corporations win. Workers lose. Billionaires win. Voters lose. Police win. Presidents win. Democracy loses.

And it’s accelerating. In the first twenty weeks after Trump’s second inauguration, the DOJ filed 19 emergency applications to the Supreme Court. That equals the total number Biden’s DOJ filed in four years. The Court granted most of them. No oral arguments. No full briefing. No public reasoning. Just rubber stamps in the dark.

One of those shadow docket rulings was Wilcox v. Trump. The Court let Trump fire members of the National Labor Relations Board despite laws protecting them from removal. Ninety years of precedent overturned without a hearing. The NLRB lost its quorum. The agency that protects your right to organize can’t function. That was the point.

Right now, today, ICE agents are in American streets detaining people without warrants. ProPublica documented over 170 U.S. citizens wrongfully detained in 2025. In January, an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old American woman in Minneapolis. We all saw it. More people died in ICE detention last year than in the previous four years combined.

The Court made sure you can’t stop it. In Trump v. CASA, they ruled that lower courts can no longer block unconstitutional policies nationwide. Legal protection now only extends to the specific people who file the lawsuit.

Think about what that means for our history. If this rule existed during the Civil Rights Movement, Brown v. Board wouldn’t have opened every school door in America. Little Rock Central High would have stayed segregated until every single Black family in Arkansas filed their own separate, expensive lawsuit. A victory for one same-sex couple wouldn’t have brought marriage equality to the nation. It would have just been a lucky break for two people.

One meaningful court case used to be able to change the nation. Now a victory is just a private win. It says rights only matter if you can afford the lawyers to fight for them. By killing the nationwide injunction, the Court ensured that even when a policy is clearly unconstitutional, the administration can keep doing it to everyone who wasn’t lucky enough to be a plaintiff.

Now the Court has agreed to hear arguments on birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment says anyone born here is a citizen. One sentence. Not ambiguous. Written to overturn Dred Scott. Settled law for 127 years. Every lower court ruled against Trump’s executive order trying to end it.

The Supreme Court didn’t have to take this case. They chose to.

The Times has written about Thomas’s trips on billionaire Harlan Crow’s private jet. About Alito’s flags. About the Chief Justice making employees sign NDAs. Good work.

But they treat this like an ethics problem. Like better disclosure rules would fix it.

The Court is an instrument of class warfare in robes. Six people are dismantling the legal framework that protects you from concentrated power. They have lifetime appointments. No elections. No term limits. No enforceable ethics code. They decide which rules apply to themselves.

Reform won’t fix this. The answer is replacement.

Article III of the Constitution says judges hold office “during good Behaviour.” That’s different from the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for presidents. It’s a higher bar, not a lower one. The Framers understood that unelected lifetime appointees needed stricter standards.

Judges have been impeached and removed for conduct that wasn’t criminal. In 1913, Judge Robert Archbald was removed for improper relationships with litigants. Exposed now: luxury travel, private jets, undisclosed gifts from billionaires with business before the Court. The parallel writes itself.

Justices who accept millions from parties who appear before them are not exhibiting good behavior. Justices who overturn ninety years of precedent on the shadow docket are not exhibiting good behavior. Justices who tell Congress they respect settled law and then gut it are not exhibiting good behavior.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to remove them. It’s right there.

The Times wants the Court to reform itself. To respond to shame. To protect its legitimacy through moderation.

That ship sailed. The justices serve for life. They answer to no one. They’ve decided they don’t have to.

So we replace them.

The justices serve us. Not the other way around.

It’s time they were reminded.

Corbin Trent