Courts in the Culture Crossfire: Insights from Linda Greenhouse
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from October 22, 2025 | Law, Politics, and Power: Perspectives on the Supreme Court. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Linda Greenhouse—Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, longtime New York Times Supreme Court correspondent, and senior research scholar at Yale Law School—joined moderator Patt Morrison to explore how today’s Supreme Court is reshaping the nation’s social and political landscape. Their conversation traced the Court’s expanding role in the culture wars, its declining public approval, and the growing public engagement with what happens inside the marble halls of Washington.
A New Era of Public Attention
For decades, the Supreme Court operated beyond the day-to-day focus of most Americans. That has changed. Greenhouse noted that public interest in the Court has surged in the aftermath of several blockbuster decisions. “People are paying attention now,” she said. “And that’s a good thing.” For the first time, large numbers of Americans—especially young people—are tuning in to live streams, reading briefs, and debating outcomes that once seemed abstract or remote.
After Dobbs: Rights and Reputation
The Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade marked a turning point for both constitutional rights and the Court’s credibility. Approval ratings plunged from 62 percent two decades ago to roughly 42 percent today—and unlike past controversies, the Court’s reputation has not rebounded. Greenhouse emphasized that the conservative majority genuinely believes it is “doing the right thing” in restoring what it sees as the Constitution’s original meaning. That conviction, she said, insulates the justices from concerns about public perception, even as Americans wrestle with the loss of long-recognized rights.
Voting Rights in the Balance
Among the most consequential cases before the Court this term is Louisiana v. Kelly, which tests Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The law requires that minority voters be given an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Greenhouse warned that the Court appears poised not to strike Section 2 outright, but to hollow it out—by reframing racial gerrymandering as merely “political.” Under that logic, legislators could claim their redistricting aims are partisan, not discriminatory, effectively gutting the statute while leaving it on the books. “They’ll keep it alive,” Greenhouse said, “but cut the heart out from under it.”
Trans Rights, Religion, and Free Speech
This term also brings multiple cases at the intersection of identity, religion, and expression. Two involve transgender women in sports and conversion therapy bans, both touching on free speech and equal protection. Greenhouse noted that while the Court previously extended workplace protections to LGBTQ+ Americans under the Civil Rights Act, these new cases could chart a different constitutional course—potentially expanding religious exemptions while narrowing civil rights guarantees. “The Court has injected itself into the culture wars,” she observed. “It’s unusual—but predictable for this Court.”
Originalism and Its Elastic Boundaries
The discussion turned to “originalism,” the judicial philosophy claiming to interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Greenhouse called it “not original at all,” noting that it emerged in the 1970s as a political project to challenge the post-New Deal expansion of rights and federal authority. Even some conservative scholars, she said, now question how consistently originalist reasoning is applied. The current bench, while influenced by the philosophy, is far from uniform—suggesting potential fissures within its conservative majority.
What Reform Can—and Can’t—Do
Proposals such as Supreme Court term limits continue to poll well across party lines, but Greenhouse reminded the audience that real change would be slow and difficult. Because life tenure is effectively hard-wired into the Constitution, term limits would require an amendment or a complex workaround that wouldn’t alter the Court’s composition for decades. “The Constitution,” she said, “is the hardest in the world to amend.”
Engaged Citizens as a Democratic Guardrail
Despite the challenges, Greenhouse closed on an optimistic note. The Court’s decisions have sparked unprecedented public scrutiny, civic discussion, and classroom debate. That attention, she suggested, is a form of accountability in itself. “Even if people can’t make the Court come around to where they’d like it to be,” she said, “they’re not looking away anymore—and that’s a good thing for democracy.”
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.