E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism
Mark Tushnet
Aaron Belkin and I have written the following open letter to the Biden administration urging that it endorse and take steps to implement popular constitutionalism as a response to what the President has described as "not a normal" Supreme Court. We urge readers to let the administration know in their own ways that reinvigorating the long and honored tradition of popular constitutionalism is both viable and urgently needed in today's circumstances.
We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices
immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on
gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most
fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own
constitutional interpretations.
We have worked diligently over the past five years to
advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring
democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA
justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional
approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage
President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.
The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular
Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over
constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s
interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative
interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they
can express their views at the ballot box. Popular Constitutionalism has a
proud history in the United States, including Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to
treat the Dred Scott decision as a political rule that would guide him as he
exercised presidential powers.
We do not believe that President Biden should simply ignore
every MAGA ruling. The President should act when MAGA justices issue
high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional
interpretations, and when presidential action predicated on his
administration’s constitutional interpretations would substantially mitigate
the damage posed by the ruling in question.
Such actions could help contain the grave threat posed by
MAGA justices. For example, President Biden could declare that the Court's
recent decision in the affirmative action cases applies only to selective
institutions of higher education and that the Administration will continue to
pursue affirmative action in every other context vigorously because it believes
that the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong.
Each time the President takes such a step, he should explain
how and why the MAGA ruling poses serious threats to our fundamental
commitments, should identify the mistaken constitutional interpretations that
sustain the ruling, and should underscore that Popular Constitutionalism has a
proud history in the United States.
As Nikolas Bowie has demonstrated, treating the Supreme
Court as the sole source of constitutional interpretations is antithetical to
American democracy, as the Supreme Court has spent most of its history wielding
“an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal
attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth, and status.” In this
particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most
fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy
and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based
on misleading and untrue claims. Notably, other healthy and robust democracies
do not allow courts to play an exclusive role in constitutional interpretation
but promote dialogues among the branches in which legislatures or chief
executives respond to judicial interpretations by offering their own competing
interpretations.
Popular Constitutionalism is not a silver bullet against
MAGA justices. Its success requires support from members of Congress and the
public generally. Nor is Popular Constitutionalism in the form of presidential
action risk-free, as future GOP administrations would cite it as precedent for
ignoring federal courts. Notably, though, Republican presidents might well
ignore federal courts regardless of what President Biden does. The GOP’s
failure to hold President Trump accountable for inciting a violent coup is
perhaps the clearest of many indications that party leaders and followers are
no longer committed to democracy or the rule of law. It is not hard to imagine
that a President Trump or DeSantis would circumvent or ignore rulings issued by
a liberal Supreme Court.
In light of Dobbs as well as ongoing revelations of judicial
corruption, a solid majority of the public understands the danger posed by
unchecked MAGA justices. Americans are more open than ever to the argument that
MAGA justices serve plutocrats and corporations, that what they pretend to pass
off as law is often just partisan and ideological nonsense, and that our system
of checks and balances depends on other branches to rein them in.
The President has the power to clip MAGA justices’ wings
now. To protect democracy and the rule of law, President Biden must prevent
them from exercising exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. We urge the
President to exercise leadership in this regard before it is too late.