Legacy: What Will This Supreme Court Be Remembered For?
- storybyteskendall
- Feb 22
- 3 min read
Updated: Mar 6
Written By: Maria Victoria Almarza
Opinion Column
Feb. 22nd, 2026
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA – The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s tariffs. The majority is joined by two of his appointments, Justice Amy Coney Barret and Justice Neil Gorsuch. The sharp chemical smell of the airplane clouded my thoughts as I read the AP News article. A pounding headache had ensued by the time I reached the President’s response. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, he doubled down, imposing a 15% global tariff via Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Tariffs have had a significant impact on, among many sectors, the U.S. government's income and international relations; they impact the country’s structure and, therefore, the daily lives of Americans. The significance of this moment weighs heavily on me, especially in regard to the Supreme Court. This past year, increasingly impactful cases are reaching their chamber. With increasingly diverging judicial philosophies, what will this Supreme Court’s legacy be?
We are living through a pivotal time in American history. Every day, striking headlines fill every phone screen; sewing fear, hope, and divide. In response, some flood their representatives’ voicemails in anger, others take to the streets to protest, many rejoice that their voices have finally been heard, and I look to the Supreme Court. I find grounding when I read the justices’ opinions – their rulings, dissents, and concurrences. My thoughts and interpretations of the Constitution find a home within their writings. Yet, the Court’s inherently slow, deliberate pace leaves room for uncertainty, and the expectation of partisan voting has become demoralizing.
Though I hold political beliefs, as every person does, I value democracy much more than any single ideology. The framers did not design a system around parties; that development came later. As a part of this system, the Supreme Court was intended to stand independent of partisan pressures. The Constitution, which they interpret and defend, belongs to no party.
This is not to claim the Supreme Court has ever been fully nonpartisan. It has always been shaped by politics; forever struggling to align with the constitutional ideals it was founded on. The Court is not immune to the paradox between values and behavior that historically permeates our government. Presidential nominations and senate approval are key factors in this politicization, as the dominating party appoints justices aligned with their values.
Because the Constitution does not outline any requirements for a Supreme Court Justice, I do not believe this directly negatively impacts the justice’s ability to do their work. There are perfectly good legal theories and doctrines that are favored by individuals with certain political beliefs. Still, the justices’ votes can often, though not always, be inferred by the party of the President who nominated them. For example, President Bush, a Republican, nominated three of our current philosophically conservative justices: Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts.
The Supreme Court, like the United States as a whole, has an imperfect history. However, the gaps in our system resulting from origin, time and a refusal to amend the Constitution, have become increasingly noticeable. Learning Resources v. Trump made that clear to me. The decision was a total of 170 pages, with seven out of the nine Justices writing individually. Concurrences outlined significant differences in legal reasoning and the meaning and application of the major questions doctrine. Though exciting from a legal standpoint, it was unnerving as a citizen.
The tariffs decision is significant for reasons the media seems to be overlooking. To me, it’s not just about executive power; the President has many ways other than the IEEPA to invoke tariffs. Learning Resources v. Trump is about the Supreme Court’s methods of interpretation and approach to heavily polarized and politicized cases. I hesitate to criticize the Court; I deeply admire its work and aspire to become a Justice one day. Yet, I truly believe these concerns are reasonable and raise the question: what story will be told to future generations about the Supreme Court today?
Comments