The Rise of Judicial Supremacy over Judicial Review

  the-rise-of-judicial-supremacy-over-judicial-review.html
  Politics and Government on Thu, Sep 17th, 2026 by Politico
      Locale: UNITED STATES

From Interpretation to Command

Central to the thesis of Supremacy is the distinction between the legitimate exercise of judicial review and the pursuit of judicial supremacy. While the former is a mechanism for ensuring laws align with the Constitution, the authors argue that the current Court has adopted a posture of supremacy where its interpretations are treated as infallible and unassailable, regardless of democratic consensus or historical precedent.

Bowie and Renan detail how the "Originalist" framework has been utilized not as a consistent methodology for legal analysis, but as a flexible tool to dismantle established precedents. The book suggests that by claiming to return to the "original public meaning" of the Constitution, the Court has effectively granted itself the power to rewrite the social contract under the guise of historical recovery. This process, the authors argue, allows the judiciary to exert political control without the accountability inherent in the legislative or executive branches.

The Infrastructure of Influence

Supremacy does not merely focus on the rulings themselves but explores the systemic infrastructure that enabled this transition. A significant portion of the text is dedicated to the "capture" of the judiciary. Through extensive research, Bowie and Renan map the networks of dark money and ideological vetting processes that ensured the appointment of justices predisposed to a specific, narrow vision of constitutional law.

The authors argue that the Court's current trajectory is the result of a long-term strategic operation designed to shift power away from the administrative state and toward a concentrated judicial elite. This "capture" is presented as a blueprint for ideological hegemony, where the judiciary becomes the primary site of policy-making, bypassing the messy compromise of the democratic process.

The Erosion of the Administrative State

One of the most pressing concerns highlighted in the book is the systematic dismantling of the administrative state. Bowie and Renan analyze how the Court has targeted the mechanisms that allow federal agencies to regulate environment, health, and labor. By stripping these agencies of their authority, the Court has not returned power to the people or their elected representatives, but has instead created a regulatory vacuum that can only be filled by judicial decree.

This erosion is framed as a prerequisite for supremacy. By weakening the executive's ability to govern through expertise and regulation, the Court positions itself as the only entity capable of defining the boundaries of legality and governance in the 21st century.

The Crisis of Legitimacy

The final sections of Supremacy address the resulting crisis of legitimacy. The authors posit that as the gap widens between the Court's rulings and the prevailing legal and social norms of the country, the institution risks a total collapse of public trust. However, they warn that the Court's response to this crisis has not been a return to modesty, but a further doubling-down on its authority.

Bowie and Renan conclude that the current trajectory is unsustainable. They argue that without structural reforms—such as term limits or an enforceable code of ethics—the American system of checks and balances will be permanently replaced by a judicial oligarchy. Supremacy serves as both a historical record of this transition and a warning that the current legal order may be moving toward an era where the law is not a shield for the citizen, but a sword for the state's highest court.