In his presentation for UMRA’s March 2025 Forum, Professor Timothy Johnson provided a historical perspective comparing the liberal Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren to the present court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, which is becoming one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in history. Noting that the Supreme Court is our “least known branch of government,” Johnson defined “liberal” as promotion of civil liberties and civil rights, and “conservative” as restriction of them. 

The Warren Court [1953–69] increased civil liberties and civil rights in multiple areas. It increased federal power to enforce racial equality (Brown v. Board of Education), rights of criminal defendants, First Amendment rights, and voting rights. It also created the right to privacy. Overall, the decisions of the court protected the liberties and rights of individual citizens.

Some of the early decisions of the Roberts Court [2005–present] can be viewed as extensions of civil liberties, Johnson said. For example, the court protected the right of same-sex couples to marry, it supported the right to bear arms (this is a civil liberty), and it allowed corporations to contribute to political campaigns without limit. (This is an extension of free speech principles to business entities.) However, the court also handed down conservative decisions that increased the power of government, including striking down the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and upholding federal power under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Disregarding long-established precedent

Since 2021, the Roberts Court has trended more conservative. It overturned Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which barred religious activity in public schools, framing it as a religious liberty issue. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned the right to abortion decided in Roe v. Wade (1973). With these cases, we begin to see a pattern of the Roberts Court disregarding long-established precedent, Johnson said. This continued with the overturning of several other previous decisions and policies. Then, the court stripped the power of experts in federal agencies to interpret federal law (overturning the Chevron doctrine in force since 1984), and greatly increased the power of the presidency in Trump v. United States by ruling that a president may not be prosecuted for any acts performed in carrying out official duties.

Both the Warren and Roberts courts had strong ideological majorities and heard many cases in which ideology was relevant. These majorities persisted for long periods of time. Johnson suggested that the two courts differed in their views of government power, with the Warren Court following the principle that the government should protect the people, while the Roberts Court appears to be vesting most power in the office of the president. 

A Constitutional crisis

In conclusion, Johnson remarked that there is no longer an ideological center on the court, and it will remain highly conservative and activist for decades.

A lively question and answer period about near-term prospects for the court and the country followed. In reference to President Trump’s recent attacks on judges, suggesting they should be charged with treason if they rule against him, Johnson was asked if he thinks we are facing a Constitutional crisis.

“We are very close,” he said. “The real crisis happens when [Trump] says Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts are traitors because they have voted to say no to what he is doing. Once he starts calling his own nominees traitors and horrible people, once the ‘supremes’ have to act and they get ignored, then we’re done.”

Johnson described himself as an institutionalist who believes that the democratic system will endure, while some UMRA members expressed concern that it may not.

Johnson is a Horace T. Morse Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Law (by courtesy) at the University of Minnesota. 

—Jane Glazebrook, UMRA Program Committee