Synopsis
In Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, former Supreme Court clerk, and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, delivers a sharp, witty, and incisive critique of the modern U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. The book argues that the Court, dominated by a conservative majority, has abandoned its role as an impartial arbiter of the law and instead operates on what Litman terms "vibes"—subjective, politically charged impulses rooted in conservative grievance, fringe theories, and a sense of entitlement. These vibes manifest as legal-ish claims that cloak partisan agendas in judicial robes, prioritizing the interests of a narrow minority—religious conservatives and Republican officials—whose views no longer align with the majority of Americans. Litman contends that this shift represents a profound betrayal of the Court’s mission to uphold constitutional principles and safeguard democracy, instead reshaping the law to reflect the biases and resentments of a politically powerful but increasingly unrepresentative faction.
Litman traces the Court’s descent into lawlessness through a series of recent, high-profile decisions and controversies, weaving together legal analysis with historical context and pop culture analogies to make her case accessible to non-lawyers. She examines rulings such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the expansion of presidential immunity, and the Court’s handling of issues like voting rights, LGBTQ rights, and reproductive freedom, arguing that these decisions often lack grounding in legal precedent or objective reasoning. Instead, they reflect the justices’ personal feelings, the Republican Party’s talking points, or the atmosphere at elite conservative gatherings like Federalist Society events. Litman highlights specific examples, such as Justice Samuel Alito’s display of an upside-down flag associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement and the Court’s fixation on perceived discrimination against religious conservatives during COVID lockdowns, to illustrate how the justices’ rulings align with far-right conspiracy theories and grievances about a diversifying society that no longer privileges their worldview. She argues that the conservative majority’s jurisprudence is driven by a sense of victimhood, portraying groups like religious conservatives, the wealthy, and corporate executives as oppressed minorities, despite their disproportionate power.
The book also explores the historical and structural factors that enabled this transformation, pointing to the decay of democratic institutions like the Electoral College and the Senate, which have allowed a minority to wield outsized influence over judicial appointments. Litman contrasts the current Court with the Warren Court era, which delivered landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, noting that the public’s perception of the Supreme Court as a protector of justice is outdated and at odds with its present reality. She argues that the conservative takeover of the Court was the result of a deliberate, decades-long strategy by right-wing political movements, which capitalized on these structural flaws to install justices who would advance their agenda. Yet, Litman emphasizes that the Court’s history shows it can change course in response to public pressure, political movements, or shifts in personnel, offering hope that democratic politics could eventually restore its integrity.
Litman’s tone is both irreverent and authoritative, blending the gravitas of legal scholarship with the biting humor of commentators like Elie Mystal. She employs pop culture references—comparing the Court’s dynamics to Mean Girls or Game of Thrones—to demystify complex legal concepts and engage a broad audience. The book serves as both a scathing indictment and a call to action, urging readers to educate themselves about the Court’s impact on issues like climate change, economic inequality, and civil rights, and to advocate for reforms to counteract its current trajectory. Litman suggests that just as right-wing politics has “wrecked” the possibility of real justice, democratic engagement can provide a path to remake the Court. Ultimately, Lawless is a clarion call to recognize the stakes of the Supreme Court’s drift toward partisanship and to fight value the tools needed to fight for a judiciary that serves the public rather than a privileged few.