Are you praying for the Supreme Court?

Recent cases such as Bostock, and June Medical highlight the need for prayer for our justices—regularly! In the
Supreme Court we see more and more “legislating from the bench” instead of interpreting laws and the Constitution as written. What does “legislating from the bench” mean and why is it wrong? Let’s go back to the framework of the Constitution to understand what the role of the Court is within the three branches of government.

View Comments (3)

The role of the Judicial Branch is to police the structural limits on government and neutrally interpret the law. The Executive Branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress. The Legislative Branch (Congress) is supposed to be the center and driver of the legislative process (creating the laws). When the legislative branch is not fulfilling that role for whatever reason—be it due to gridlock, the inability to make meaningful legislative action for fear of re-election ramifications, or the hyper-politicization of the role of the legislative process, legislating eventually gets done elsewhere, filling the vacuum. The Executive Branch and Judicial Branch have filled that void, albeit inappropriately. The Executive Branch issues Executive Orders to “legislate” from the White House, and the Supreme Court “legislates” by issuing decisions that create, rather than interpret, law, and are driven by the outcome that is desired.

One could say that the Supreme Court has become the battleground for debate of political ideals instead of the legislature. There is a lack of genuine debate and action in the legislature and the Supreme Court evaluates and decides many legislative matters. This is not the good government our founders outlined for our Republic. We need to pray for a restoration of the balance of power and for adherence to the original purposes of each branch of government as set forth in the founders’ framework.

Judicial activism occurs when judges decide cases based on their personal preferences or political leanings, not based on the text of the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent. The Heritage Foundation defines it: When a judge puts policy considerations above the requirements of law, bends the text of the Constitution or laws to comport with his or her own sensibilities, or otherwise angles for particular results in a case, that judge has stepped outside the proper constitutional role of policing the structural limits on government and neutrally interpreting the laws and the Constitution.

This creeping usurping of legislative authority is not a recent phenomenon, however. In fact, we see it even in the late1930s. A sharp turn was taken when the Court veered from ruling based on constitutionality and instead shifted to decide a “political question” as seen in Baker v. Carr. The influence of Justice William O. Douglas in this landmark case and through his record 35 years on the Supreme Court established the norm of the Court making the law they wanted rather than interpreting the laws as they were. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned the Court about the ramifications of entering into that new territory, and we are experiencing those ramifications today. Read the fascinating history of the Baker v Carr case here. The drama and politicization on the Court and in the nation at that time shows that what we are experiencing is not unique.

Yet some current justices are resisting judicial activism today. In his dissent on Bostock, Justice Alito opens with the following: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”

Let us pray for an end to judicial activism and legislation in the Supreme Court and a return to the proper balance of powers.

Read more about how you can pray for the Supreme Court, including the Justices, prayer points and critical influence. Download the Special Report HERE.