Erwin Chemerinsky on a Supreme Court Reshaping American Government
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from August 19, 2026 | The Supreme Court’s Landmark October 2025 Term: What it Means for America. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, examined a Supreme Court that he believes has dramatically reshaped American law in recent years. From voting rights and presidential immunity to the Court’s growing use of its emergency docket, Chemerinsky discussed how the Court’s conservative majority is changing long-standing legal principles and altering the balance of power in American government.
Five Years of Sweeping Change
Chemerinsky argued that the Supreme Court has changed the law over the past five years more dramatically than during perhaps any comparable period in American history. He pointed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, expansion of gun rights, weakening of the separation of church and state, the end of affirmative action in higher education and the granting of broad criminal immunity to presidents for official acts.
These decisions, he said, reflect not simply a conservative Court but one willing to overturn precedent and significantly redirect constitutional law.
A Weakened Voting Rights Act
Among Chemerinsky’s greatest concerns is the continued erosion of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as one of the most important laws adopted in modern American history.
He explained that the Court had already weakened the law in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which effectively eliminated the requirement that jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination receive federal approval before changing election practices.
Chemerinsky said a more recent ruling further weakened protections by making discriminatory intent increasingly important in challenges involving voting practices. The result, he warned, could be a significant loss of Black representation in Congress and state legislatures.
He also emphasized that Congress still has options, including establishing a new preclearance requirement based on current data and prohibiting partisan gerrymandering in congressional elections.
Expanding Presidential Authority
The Court has also embraced a broader view of presidential authority. Chemerinsky traced this shift to the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the president controls the entire executive branch.
That approach was reflected in the Court’s presidential immunity decision and in its move to give presidents greater authority to remove the heads of independent federal agencies. Together, Chemerinsky argued, these rulings concentrate considerably more power in the presidency.
A Court Without a Center
Chemerinsky is also troubled by the increased use of the Court’s emergency docket, where consequential cases can be decided without full briefing, oral arguments or detailed opinions explaining the Court’s reasoning.
Underlying these developments is a Court divided into two clear ideological camps. “There is no center on the current court to hold,” Chemerinsky said, pointing to the frequency of 6–3 decisions.
While ideology has always influenced the Court, Chemerinsky believes it can reduce political tensions by deciding cases more narrowly, relying less on emergency rulings, adopting a binding ethics code and exercising greater institutional restraint.
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.