Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Appointing three Supreme Court justices will likely be President Trump’s most important achievement, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett may well be the most important of the three.

Why it matters: Barrett would transform the court’s internal politics, handicapping Chief Justice John Roberts and establishing a new center of gravity on the right. Her presence would force a whole new set of strategic calculations among the justices — and those calculations will shape the law of the land for a generation.

The big picture: When you hear that Barrett would usher in a more conservative court, that doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll be writing deeply conservative rulings on abortion or health care or any other hot-button issue. In fact, that’s unlikely to happen for a long time.

  • If Barrett is confirmed, she would be the most junior justice, and the most junior justice rarely gets to write any blockbuster rulings.
  • But behind the scenes, her confirmation would shake up the balance of power on the court dramatically.

Where it stands: Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Roberts was the court’s ideological center, and firmly in control of the court.

  • That meant conservatives usually won, but those wins were often tempered by Roberts' views about the court’s role in the political process and how best to maintain the public’s trust.
  • Roberts sometimes sides with the court’s liberal wing not necessarily because he is liberal, but as a way to control how the court moves. He uses his power to ensure that it’s his hand on the wheel.

Roberts is about to lose some of that power. He’ll still be the chief justice, of course, but if Barrett is confirmed, the rest of the conservative bloc will be able to force his hand —and some of his most effective tactics to steer the pace and tenor of the court will become useless.

  • Siding with the liberals as a way to slow down his conservative colleagues won’t work any more. Once the court has a 6-3 majority, one defection won’t swing the outcome.
  • So, even in cases where Roberts fears his conservative colleagues are moving too fast or too aggressively, his only way to constrain them will be to vote with them, then write the ruling himself and try to keep it narrow.
  • But it can’t be too narrow. If the other five can’t live with what Roberts has written, they can always break off and write their own, and that would become the majority opinion.

How it works: When the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in 2012, Roberts reportedly wanted to strike down the law’s individual mandate, while leaving the rest intact. But the rest of the conservative justices wouldn’t go for that — they wanted to strike the whole thing.

  • Then, Roberts had the power to defect to the liberals and uphold the entire law. If he were on a similar island within this new conservative majority, however, the whole ACA would be toast.
  • Earlier this year, the rest of the court’s conservatives voted to overturn a recent precedent and uphold a set of abortion restrictions the court had previously struck down. Roberts, again, sided with the liberals to stop that from happening — a ruling that only served to slow conservatives’ roll, not to establish any new liberal precedent.
  • Experts said that was likely a strategic decision borne out of Roberts’ views of how to protect the court’s public standing. If that case came before the court after Barrett’s confirmation, though, Roberts likely would have had to get on board the more conservative train to have any chance of slowing it down.

Trump’s other nominees haven’t had the same impact.

  • Justice Neil Gorsuch replaced the late Antonin Scalia, which did not change the court’s ideological balance. When Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy, Roberts’ control over the court increased, because he became the only potential swing vote.
  • But because Barrett would be replacing a staunch liberal, she’ll pull the ideological balance of the court to Roberts’ right and forge a conservative majority that can live without him.

Go deeper

Democrats fret about Garland for attorney general

Judge Merrick Garland. Photo: Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

If Joe Biden picks Merrick Garland to be his attorney general, he could cost his party control of one of the most important judicial appointments in America — and many Democrats do not want the president-elect to take that chance.

How it works: Biden still hasn't named his choice to lead the Justice Department, and if he taps Garland, it would open up his seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If Democrats don’t win both Georgia Senate runoff seats next month, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would almost surely prevent the president-elect from filling it.

Dec 18, 2020 - Health

Supreme Court denies religious school challenge to Kentucky's COVID-19 restrictions

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (right). Photo: Jon Cherry via Getty

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order halting in-person instruction at most K-12 schools, including religious schools, through the end of the year, noting that the order "effectively expires this week or shortly thereafter."

Why it matters: The decision follows several cases that examined whether state coronavirus restrictions affecting religious institutions, including places of worship violate, the First Amendment.

42 mins ago - Politics & Policy

McConnell drops filibuster demand, paving way for power-sharing deal

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (R) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attend a joint session of Congress. Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has abandoned his demand that Democrats state, in writing, that they would not abandon the legislative filibuster.

Between the lines: McConnell was never going to agree to a 50-50 power sharing deal without putting up a fight over keeping the 60-vote threshold. But the minority leader ultimately caved after it became clear that delaying the organizing resolution was no longer feasible.

You’ve caught up. Now what?

Sign up for Mike Allen’s daily Axios AM and PM newsletters to get smarter, faster on the news that matters.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!