The Supreme Court's Betrayal: How Our Highest Court Abandoned Equal Justice Under Law

The Disturbing Findings

A groundbreaking study from economists at Yale and Columbia Universities reveals what many Americans have long feared: our Supreme Court has systematically failed its judicial oath to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” The research, provocatively titled “Ruling for the Rich,” demonstrates that wealthy interests enjoy significantly favorable treatment before the nation’s highest court, with outcomes increasingly predictable based on the financial resources of the parties involved.

The study’s methodology represents a significant advancement in understanding judicial bias. Researchers developed a transparent protocol where Yale undergraduates coded Supreme Court decisions from 1953 onward, categorizing cases as favoring wealthy interests when rulings shifted resources toward parties more likely to be wealthy. This included decisions favoring employers over workers, corporations over consumers, businesses over government regulators, and rulings that reduced competition or weakened social safety nets.

The results paint a troubling picture of judicial evolution. During the mid-20th century, Democratic and Republican appointees were statistically indistinguishable in their treatment of economic cases, deciding approximately 45% of cases in favor of wealthy interests. By 2022, this had dramatically shifted: Republican appointees decided 70% of cases favoring the wealthy, while Democratic appointees decided 35% in their favor. Most alarmingly, Republican appointees became “pro-rich at roughly twice the rate that Democrat appointees have become more pro-poor.”

Historical Context and Comparative Analysis

This research builds upon previous studies examining business success rates before the Court. A separate analysis by professors Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati found that over the century ending in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled for businesses an average of 41% of the time. However, under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership since 2005, businesses prevailed 63% of the time. This contrasts sharply with the liberal Warren Court (1953-1969), where businesses succeeded only 29% of the time.

The study’s findings align with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent dissent lamenting “the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.” Similarly, author Adam Cohen’s 2021 book “Supreme Inequality” argued that “the court’s decisions have lifted up those who are already high and brought down those who are already low.”

The Constitutional Crisis of Confidence

This systematic favoring of wealthy interests represents more than just statistical anomaly—it constitutes a fundamental breach of the judicial oath and a crisis of constitutional proportions. Every Supreme Court justice takes two oaths: the general federal oath to support the Constitution, and a specific judicial oath requiring them to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” The study’s findings suggest that for decades, many justices have failed this sacred promise.

The implications for American democracy are profound. When citizens perceive that justice is for sale or that outcomes depend on wealth rather than merit, faith in our entire legal system erodes. Recent polling showing declining public confidence in the Supreme Court confirms that Americans recognize this disturbing trend. A judiciary that serves wealth rather than justice cannot maintain legitimacy in a democratic society.

The Partisan Divide and Institutional Damage

The growing partisan divide in judicial decision-making represents perhaps the most dangerous development. The fact that Republican appointees now favor wealthy interests at twice their historical rate demonstrates how partisan politics has infected judicial decision-making. This partisan capture of the judiciary threatens the very concept of an independent judiciary—a cornerstone of American constitutional democracy.

Chief Justice Roberts’ 2005 confirmation hearing statement now rings hollow: “If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.” The study suggests that in reality, the Court has increasingly found constitutional reasons for the “big guy” to win, regardless of constitutional merit.

The Human Cost of Judicial Bias

Behind these statistics lie real human consequences. Every case favoring wealthy interests represents denied justice for ordinary Americans: workers denied fair wages, consumers harmed by corporate negligence, communities suffering environmental degradation, and citizens deprived of social safety nets. The Court’s bias has tangible effects on millions of lives while systematically transferring wealth and power upward.

This judicial favoritism creates a vicious cycle where wealthy interests gain more influence, which they use to secure even more favorable outcomes through political appointments and lobbying. The result is an accelerating erosion of equal justice under law—precisely what the judicial oath was designed to prevent.

A Call for Accountability and Reform

These findings demand immediate attention and response from all who value constitutional democracy. We must demand greater judicial accountability, perhaps through strengthened ethical guidelines, recusal standards, and transparency measures. The legal community must confront this evidence honestly rather than dismissing it as merely reflecting “conservative” jurisprudence.

Ultimately, we must remember that the Supreme Court derives its power from public trust. When that trust evaporates due to systematic bias, the Court’s legitimacy—and ultimately its power—diminishes. The study from Yale and Columbia should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans who believe in equal justice under law. Our Constitution promises equal protection to all citizens, not privileged protection for wealthy interests. It’s time our highest court remembered that fundamental truth.