The Supreme Court, particularly with its conservative supermajority, has shown a pronounced tendency to favor corporate interests, expanding their rights while often narrowing corporate liability and access to justice against them. This trend is evident across recent terms, with conservative justices frequently aligning with business positions. Decisions in the 2022-2023 term underscored this dynamic, with several conservative justices siding with corporate interests in over 80% of business-related cases.
A significant shift in the Court's approach involves the "major questions" doctrine. This doctrine presumes that Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, meaning federal agencies require "clear congressional authorization" to act on significant issues. This has effectively curtailed federal regulatory power, with the Court substituting its own policy judgments for those of administrative agencies. This approach has been applied in cases involving environmental regulations and worker safety, even when statutory language appears unambiguous regarding agency authority.
Read More: AI influence on judges discussed in Bengaluru
Shifting Legal Terrain
The Court's rulings have impacted various aspects of business operations and legal recourse:
Arbitration: The Court has maintained a focus on arbitration, issuing unanimous decisions that resolve procedural questions. In one instance, where a litigant successfully compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the district court was directed to stay, rather than dismiss, the litigation.
Contract Disputes: When faced with conflicting contracts, the Court has ruled that a court, not an arbitrator, must determine which contract governs, particularly concerning the resolution of arbitrability disputes.
Public Space Regulations: In a 6-3 decision, the Court affirmed that enforcing ordinances blocking camping and sleeping in public spaces does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Nationwide Injunctions: While not outright banning them, the Court has limited the circumstances under which lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions. The majority argued that class-action lawsuits are a more appropriate mechanism for such broad relief, potentially leading to a more fragmented legal environment for businesses.
Broader Implications
Beyond specific case outcomes, the Court's jurisprudence is seen as having broader consequences:
Corporate Rights Expansion: The Court's trend of expanding corporate rights, sometimes with an "approach insensitive to many of their realities," is a recurring theme. This includes how the Court conceptualizes corporations and can limit access to justice against them.
Worker Rights Erosion: Critics argue that the Supreme Court has played a role in a long-term campaign to erode workers' rights, issuing rulings that have undermined union formation, strength, and workplace health and safety. This is particularly noted concerning the enforcement of individualized arbitration agreements, often a condition of employment.
Regulatory Power Curtailed: The "major questions" doctrine, as detailed in Source 10, is seen as a method to curb federal regulatory power, allowing the Court to substitute its policy views for those of Congress and agencies.
Background and Context
The reporting on the Supreme Court's business dealings has also touched upon internal court matters. A leak of a draft opinion in May 2022 prompted discussions about the Court's work habits, including its reliance on an honor system for document security and the potential need for enhanced security measures. This leak highlighted the tension between the Court's tradition-laden operations and the need to protect sensitive information, with experts noting that strict document controls could impede the court's functioning. The composition of the Court, with a 6-3 conservative supermajority, has been a consistent factor in the pattern of decisions favoring corporate interests.
