The See-No-Evil Supreme Court
This article critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, arguing that the Roberts Court consistently ignores or rationalizes evidence of racial animus in government actions. The author compares this trend to the historical Korematsu decision, labeling it a 'Neo-Korematsu Doctrine' that undermines Reconstruction-era protections.
Why it matters
It highlights a significant shift in judicial philosophy regarding civil rights and government accountability, impacting the legal landscape for marginalized groups in the U.S.
The majority refuses to see evidence of racism.
Illustration by Paul Spella / The Atlantic. Source: U.S. Supreme Court. July 14, 2026, 8:04 AM ET Share Save The Roberts Court accelerated its assault on the freedoms guaranteed by the Reconstruction amendments this term, leaving only the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship intact—and that by only one vote. Across multiple cases dealing with voting and immigration, a consistent theme has emerged from the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence: a determination to ignore, rationalize, or misrepresent the explicit animus of government officials—and the president in particular—toward the groups that have been targeted.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in