2026年5月12日美国东部时间下午2:57 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
亚伦·布莱克 撰稿
美国最高法院大楼 2024年11月8日黎明时分摄于华盛顿特区
亚伦·M·施普雷彻/美联社/档案照片
自2020年最高法院形成6比3的保守派多数席位以来，民主党一直对其不满。2022年最高法院推翻“罗伊诉韦德案”，以及2024年裁定唐纳德·特朗普享有大范围总统豁免权后，民主党对最高法院的反感更是达到顶点。
但在最高法院作出两项裁决，允许南方红色州取消多数黑人选区后——共和党正公开利用此举巩固其众议院多数席位——民主党的言论出现了转变。
他们如今不仅尖锐批评最高法院，更直接攻击其合法性，称其腐败，指责其公然政治化，并警告该法院将留下千古骂名。
鉴于近期法院的裁决明显有利于共和党，民主党认为这一指控公平合理。但目前尚不清楚这在政治上是否站得住脚——而且和唐纳德·特朗普总统此前针对大法官的言论一样，此举有可能让民众对政府关键分支的合法性产生质疑。
一些知名民主党人的言论调子格外鲜明，表明他们正试图向最高法院施压，或借此在选举中抨击最高法院，或是两者兼而有之。
亚利桑那州联邦参议员鲁本·加列戈 2025年10月1日走出美国国会参议院会议厅
安德鲁·哈尼克/盖蒂图片社/档案照片
“最高法院被操纵了。”潜在2028年总统竞选人、亚利桑那州民主党参议员鲁本·加列戈在社交媒体上写道。他还称该法院是“美国历史上最具党派性的最高法院”。
另一位潜在2028年总统竞选人、加利福尼亚州州长加文·纽瑟姆的办公室在X平台上发帖称，该法院“在赤裸裸地推行强权政治”，并在周一针对阿拉巴马州的裁决中“在选票已经寄出后干预选举”。
（阿拉巴马州的裁决作出时，该州初选已于下周安排就绪，缺席选票也已发出。）
“众多美国人对特朗普任命的大法官组成的最高法院失去信心，如今将其视为党派政治实体——他们看得一清二楚，这并非没有原因。”纽瑟姆的办公室写道。
新泽西州联邦参议员科里·布克 3月举行闭门简报会后在国会山接受媒体采访
安娜·莫尼梅克/盖蒂图片社/档案照片
2020年曾参选总统的新泽西州联邦参议员科里·布克在周日美国全国广播公司《与媒体见面》节目中称最高法院是“腐败的法院”。
其他众多民主党人也表达了类似观点：
- 加利福尼亚州联邦众议员泰德·柳称首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨是“美国历史上最具党派性的最高法院的领头政治推手”。
- 同为加利福尼亚州联邦众议员的罗·卡纳称该法院是“道德沦丧的最高法院”。
- 佛蒙特州联邦参议员伯尼·桑德斯（与民主党党团共同投票的独立议员）称其为“反动的最高法院”。
- 缅因州联邦参议员候选人格雷厄姆·普拉特纳表示，“腐败的极右翼最高法院正忙着按照自身形象重塑国会”。
最高法院4月底在一起路易斯安那州案件中的裁决大幅削弱了《选举权法案》，为共和党在2026年中期选举中绘制更多倾向共和党的选区提供了新工具。
在路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州两项裁决之间，多位知名黑人民主党人将罗伯茨领导的最高法院与罗杰·坦尼首席大法官领导的法院相提并论——后者在1857年臭名昭著的“德雷德·斯科特案”裁决中认定黑人不具备公民资格。
南卡罗来纳州联邦众议员詹姆斯·克莱伯恩 2025年6月10日出席预算听证会
凯文·沃尔夫/美联社/档案照片
“我认为罗伯茨大法官将与坦尼等一众声名狼藉的大法官齐名。”南卡罗来纳州联邦众议员、前众议院民主党三号人物詹姆斯·克莱伯恩在周日接受美国有线电视新闻网记者杰克·塔珀采访时表示。
路易斯安那州裁决作出后，前民主党全国委员会主席杰米·哈里森称罗伯茨领导的最高法院是“美国历史上最糟糕的最高法院。没错，比坦尼法院还要糟糕。毋庸置疑。”
（哈里森数月来一直持这一观点，他认为罗伯茨领导的最高法院对民权的削弱比坦尼法院更加隐晦和阴险，但同样危险。）
民主党质疑最高法院合法性、尤其是在“罗伊诉韦德案”被推翻和特朗普获得总统豁免权裁决后，指责最高法院过于极端右翼，并非首次。
但如今，更尖锐的回应——往往直指大法官的动机——似乎或多或少已成为众多前民主党总统候选人和潜在总统竞选人的标准论调。
当然，多年来特朗普一直在削弱司法机构的合法性，野蛮抨击他不喜欢的裁决。就在周日，他还公开暗示自己任命的三名大法官应对他效忠——这并非司法系统的正常运作逻辑。
严厉批评与无端批评之间存在微妙界限。民主党人会辩称，最高法院的所作所为已经配得上他们的批评。
毫无疑问，最高法院近期的裁决是共和党的重大胜利。但除此之外，批评人士指出，最高法院多次搁置甚至推翻自身先例——即本应指导法律问题裁决的判例——其方式往往有利于共和党。
民主党策略的局限性与潜在影响
民权活动人士在最高法院外抗议，抗议一起质疑路易斯安那州国会选区划分的案件的口头辩论。
（比尔·克拉克/CQ罗林斯/美联社/档案照片
目前，左翼对最高法院的怀疑态度更为普遍。但似乎尚无大批美国民众认同最高法院已被彻底操控、丧失合法性的观点。
路透社与益普索上月进行的一项民调（在路易斯安那州裁决前不久开展）显示，53%的美国人对最高法院持负面看法，43%持正面看法。
盖洛普和马奎特大学法学院最近的民调也显示，最高法院的支持率同样呈负面分化。
这一结果并不理想，但鉴于美国人对诸多机构失去信心，这也并非反常现象。
例如，路透社-益普索民调显示，仅有21%的受访者和33%的民主党人对最高法院“非常反感”。马奎特大学的民调显示，仅有23%的美国人和不足半数的民主党人（43%）强烈反对最高法院。
两项民调均在最高法院推翻特朗普关税政策后开展，民调显示约三分之二的美国人支持该项裁决。
但尚不清楚“最高法院丧失合法性”的论调能否打动摇摆选民——至少在路易斯安那州裁决前是如此——即便这可能激发民主党核心支持者的热情。或许“最高法院过快削弱民权，帮助共和党大幅削减国会中黑人代表比例”的论调最终能获得更广泛的共鸣。
尽管如此，民主党正打出类似特朗普式的警告，向最高法院表明他们准备采取行动。
但这一策略的弊端在于，可能进一步损害公众对最高法院公信力的信任。3月美国全国广播公司新闻的民调显示，仅有7%的美国人对最高法院“非常有信心”，约40%的美国人“几乎没有信心”或完全不信任最高法院。
在如今国会鲜有作为的政治环境中，重大问题往往最终取决于最高法院能否制衡总统。
如果美国人不再信任法院作为最终裁决者，这对美国民主而言将是重大危机。
Democrats are going there on attacking the Supreme Court. Here’s what it could mean
2026-05-12 2:57 PM ET / CNN
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Supreme Court Donald Trump Supreme Court justices
The US Supreme Court building seen at dawn on November 8, 2024, in Washington, DC.
Aaron M. Sprecher/AP/File
Democrats haven’t been fans of the US Supreme Court since it became a 6-3 conservative majority in 2020. And they certainly haven’t been fans since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and gave Donald Trump a large grant of presidential immunity in 2024.
But after a pair of rulings allowing red Southern states to eliminate majority-Black districts — which Republicans are openly using to try and save their House majority — Democrats’ rhetoric has taken a turn.
Increasingly, they’re not just sharply criticizing the court; they’re attacking its legitimacy, calling it corrupt, painting it as overtly political and warning it will live in infamy.
Given recent court actions that have clearly benefitted Republicans, Democrats think that’s a fair and valid argument. But it’s not yet clear it’s a winning political one — and it’s one that, like President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the justices, risks delegitimizing a key branch of government.
Some big-name Democrats’ comments have been remarkably pitched, signaling that they’re trying to apply pressure to the court or run against it, or both.
Sen. Ruben Gallego walks out of the Senate Chamber at the US Capitol on October 1, 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/File
“The Supreme Court is rigged,” posted Sen. Ruben Gallego, a potential 2028 contender. The Arizona Democrat also called it the “most partisan Supreme Court in the history of the nation.”
The office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, another potential 2028 hopeful, posted on X that the court was “doing raw power politics” and, in the case of its Alabama ruling Monday, “meddling in elections AFTER votes have been cast.”
(The Alabama ruling came even though the state’s primaries had been scheduled for next week and absentee ballots had already gone out.)
“There’s a reason so many Americans have lost faith in the Trump Court and now view it as a partisan political entity — they have eyes,” Newsom’s office wrote.
Sen. Cory Booker speaks to the media at the US Capitol after briefings on March 3.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who ran for president in 2020, called the Supreme Court “a corrupt court” on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
And plenty of other Democrats weighed in with similar thoughts:
- Rep. Ted Lieu of California called Chief Justice John Roberts “a political actor who is leading the most partisan Supreme Court in American history.”
- Fellow California Rep. Ro Khanna called it a “morally bankrupt Court.”
- Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (an independent who caucuses with Democrats) called it a “reactionary Supreme Court.”
- Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner said the “corrupt, far-right Supreme Court is busy remaking Congress in their image.”
The Supreme Court’s late-April ruling in a Louisiana case severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, giving Republicans a new tool in their overt effort to draw more GOP-leaning districts for the 2026 midterms.
And between the Louisiana and Alabama decisions, a pair of prominent Black Democrats compared the Roberts Court to the one led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, which wrote the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision ruling Black people could not be citizens.
Rep. James Clyburn speaks during a budget hearing on Tuesday, June 10, 2025.
Kevin Wolf/AP/File
“I think that Justice Roberts is going to take his place alongside some other infamous justices like Taney,” Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the former No. 3 House Democrat, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.
After the Louisiana decision, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison called the Roberts Court “the worst Supreme Court in American history. Yes, worse than the Taney Court. Full stop.”
(Harrison has been making this comparison for months, arguing the Roberts Court’s rollback of civil rights is more subtle and insidious than the Taney Court, but not less dangerous.)
It’s not totally new for Democrats to question the legitimacy of the court, especially after the end of Roe and the Trump immunity ruling, and knock it for being too far-right.
But today, a more pointed response — that often invokes the justices’ motives — seems to be more or less the standard talking point among many former and would-be Democratic presidential candidates.
Of course, Trump has spent years undercutting the legitimacy of the courts and savagely attacking rulings he dislikes. As recently as Sunday, he was publicly suggesting the three justices he appointed should be loyal to him (which isn’t how it’s supposed to work).
And there is a fine line between harsh criticism and unwarranted criticism. Democrats would argue the Supreme Court has earned what it’s getting from them.
There is no question that the court’s recent decision was a major win for Republicans. But beyond that, critics have noted the court has repeatedly set aside and overturned its own precedents — that is, cases that are supposed to guide how legal issues are decided — in ways that have frequently favored Republicans.
The limits – and potential impact – of Democrats’ strategy
Voting rights activists protest outside the Supreme Court ahead of arguments in a case challenging Louisiana’s congressional map.
(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP/File
Right now, there is much more skepticism of the court on the left. But it doesn’t yet appear that large swaths of the country have bought into the idea that the court is hopelessly captured and illegitimate.
A poll last month from Reuters and Ipsos, which was conducted shortly before the Louisiana decision, showed Americans viewed the Supreme Court unfavorably 53%-43%.
The most recent polls from Gallup and Marquette Law School have shown the court with a similarly negative split.
That’s not great, but it’s not unusual given Americans have lost faith in many institutions.
For instance, the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed just 21% overall and 33% of Democrats had a “very unfavorable” view of the Supreme Court. The Marquette poll showed just 23% of Americans and less than a majority of Democrats (43%) strongly disapproved of the court.
Both surveys were notably conducted after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs, a decision polls showed about two-thirds of Americans agreed with.
But it’s not clear an argument about the court’s illegitimacy speaks to swing voters — or at least, that it spoke to them before the Louisiana decision — even if it could motivate passionate portions of the Democratic base. It’s possible an argument about the court rolling back civil rights too quickly and helping Republicans decimate Black representation in Congress could ultimately register more broadly.
Still, Democrats are firing a Trump-esque warning shot to the court that they are willing to go there.
But the downside of that strategy is that it could further damage the court’s credibility in the eyes of the public. An NBC News poll in March showed a record-low 7% of Americans had a “great deal” of confidence in the Supreme Court, while about 4 in 10 had “very little” or no confidence in it.
In a body politic in which Congress doesn’t do much anymore, the big questions often boil down to whether the Supreme Court will check the president.
And if Americans don’t trust the courts to be that final arbiter, that’s a big problem for US democracy.