Chief Justice Roberts: The Long Game to Reshape American Democracy

Chief Justice John Roberts is approaching the culmination of a decades-long project to fundamentally reshape American democracy—one that began when he was a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department and now threatens to dismantle voting protections that have stood for generations.

Recent Supreme Court arguments and decisions reveal a coordinated assault on democratic guardrails, from voting rights to the structure of independent government agencies. At the center of it all sits Roberts, whose early career goal of preserving the Voting Rights Act "in name only" while rendering it unenforceable may finally be within reach.

From Reagan's Justice Department to the Supreme Court

In 1982, a young John Roberts served as the architect of the Reagan administration's strategy to weaken the Voting Rights Act during its reauthorization. The central question then—as now—was whether the law should prohibit election procedures with racially discriminatory effects, or only those passed with explicit discriminatory intent.

According to reporting in The Atlantic, Roberts designed the Justice Department's approach to preserve the VRA's symbolic importance while gutting its practical enforcement mechanisms. More than four decades later, he's positioned to finish what he started.

Last month's oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais signaled that a majority of conservative justices appear willing to forbid the use of race data in redistricting—a move that could effectively end Section 2 protections for minority voters. The implications are staggering: states across the South could redraw congressional districts currently represented by Black Democrats into whiter, more conservative seats, potentially before the 2026 midterms.

The Texas Redistricting Case: A Warning Shot

The Supreme Court's intervention in Texas redistricting earlier this year provides a preview of what's coming. Texas decided to redraw its congressional maps mid-decade—an extraordinary step disconnected from the constitutionally mandated decennial census.

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, noted in his analysis that the new Texas maps were designed to produce additional Republican seats "all at the expense of Black and Latino voters," despite those communities accounting for roughly 95 percent of the state's population growth.

When a Fifth Circuit panel temporarily blocked the maps as unlawful, the Supreme Court intervened through its emergency "shadow docket"—allowing the election to proceed with the contested maps, with limited briefing, no oral argument, and minimal explanation. Roberts described the current Voting Rights Act framework as addressing "an agency that had very little, if any executive power," suggesting the law has outlived its relevance.

Dismantling Independent Agencies

The Roberts Court's ambitions extend beyond voting rights. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court is considering whether to overturn nearly a century of precedent protecting independent federal agencies from presidential whim.

The case stems from President Trump's dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission without cause—a direct violation of the 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, which established that FTC commissioners could only be removed for cause. Roberts dismissed Humphrey's as a "dried husk," arguing that too much time has passed since the decision and that the modern FTC bears little resemblance to its 1935 predecessor.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Humphrey's was "grievously wrong when decided" and that the President should have unfettered control over all executive functions. "All executive power is vested in the President," Sauer told the Court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized the stakes: the administration is "asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."

The implications ripple far beyond the FTC. Trump has attempted to fire Democrats from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the National Credit Union Administration. Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the Federal Reserve, asking how the Court would distinguish the Fed from agencies like the FTC if it rules in Trump's favor.

A Pattern of Partisan Outcomes

The Supreme Court's trajectory isn't accidental. A Court Accountability report analyzing rulings through late October found that individuals and groups challenging the Trump administration won approximately 60 percent of cases at the district level and 59 percent at circuit courts—including 55 percent before Trump-appointed judges.

At the Supreme Court? Trump enjoyed a 90 percent win rate across 23 temporary orders and rulings related to his administration's actions.

This disparity suggests what the Court Accountability report characterized as "ideologically driven" decision-making that diverges sharply from the broader federal judiciary's approach.

The 2026 Elections Under Threat

Waldman warned that the 2026 elections "will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination." He placed responsibility squarely on Roberts and his conservative colleagues.

The Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause already rejected challenges to partisan gerrymandering, holding that federal courts lack authority to set limits on political manipulation of district maps. This ruling triggered a predictable arms race, with both parties racing to draw increasingly aggressive maps.

If the Court weakens or dismantles Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, analysis by New York Times journalist Nate Cohn estimates that Republican-led states could eliminate between six and twelve congressional districts currently held by Democrats—a shift exceeding the size of recent House majorities and potentially determining control of Congress.

As Brennan Center colleague Kareem Crayton wrote, such a ruling "invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation—the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place."

A Court Becoming the Issue

During oral arguments this week in a death penalty case about measuring intellectual disability, justices displayed visible frustration—eye rolls, gestures, and frequent interruptions marked what one observer called a "conundrum" of a case. But the real frustration should belong to Americans watching their democratic institutions systematically dismantled.

Roberts once counseled that "if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach." Yet the conservative supermajority seems remarkably comfortable with every conclusion they've drawn—conclusions that consistently expand conservative political power while limiting accountability and minority representation.

What Comes Next

Waldman called on Congress to enact national redistricting standards applicable to both parties, pointing to the Constitution's explicit grant of authority over federal elections. The Freedom to Vote Act would bar mid-decade redistricting, while the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would strengthen protections against discriminatory maps.

But with a divided Congress and a Supreme Court hostile to voting protections, the path forward remains uncertain. What's clear is that Roberts's four-decade project is nearing completion—and American democracy hangs in the balance.

"The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics," Waldman concluded. "That's as it should be."

As the 2026 midterms approach, voters may find themselves participating in elections shaped more by judicial fiat than by the democratic principles the Court is supposed to protect. John Roberts's dream is finally coming true—and it's democracy's nightmare.