Supreme Court Accused of 'Zig-Zagging' to Reach 'Preferred Outcomes'

The court's conservative majority has been criticized for putting partisan politics over the law in recent rulings.

Published on Mar. 4, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

According to a recent article in The New Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court, where Republicans now have a 6-3 supermajority, has been a frequent source of frustration to liberals and progressives as well as the libertarian right. The article argues that the court's GOP appointees aren't shy about putting partisan politics over the law, as evidenced by two recent cases - Malliotakis v. Williams and Mirabelli v. Bonta.

Why it matters

The article suggests that the Supreme Court needs a majority of justices who are 'willing to consistently apply legal principles instead of zig-zagging to reach preferred policy outcomes,' which the author argues does not currently exist. This raises concerns about the court's impartiality and adherence to the rule of law.

The details

In Malliotakis v. Williams, the six GOP-appointed justices voted to save a congressional map favorable to Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-New York), whose district includes areas of Staten Island and Brooklyn. In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the conservative justices apparently agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that a California law forbidding school officials from discussing a student's gender transition with their parents without the student's consent infringed on their First Amendment rights.

  • The article was published on March 4, 2026.

The players

Supreme Court

The highest court in the United States, where Republicans now have a 6-3 supermajority.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis

A Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives whose congressional district in New York was redrawn in a way that made it harder for her to win reelection.

Matt Ford

The author of the article published in The New Republic that criticizes the Supreme Court's recent rulings as being driven by partisan politics rather than the law.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“In the old days, it used to require actual work to show that the Supreme Court justices were driven by their personal beliefs instead of straightforwardly applying law, precedent, and procedure. You'd have to connect dots across multiple rulings and explain intricate legal doctrines. Even then, it might be too speculative to be truly persuasive. These days, I could probably convince my two-year-old son of the High Court's shenanigans just based on a single day's rulings.”

— Matt Ford (The New Republic)

The takeaway

The article suggests that the Supreme Court's conservative majority has been increasingly willing to put partisan politics over the law in its rulings, raising concerns about the court's impartiality and adherence to the rule of law.