When did the justices stop caring about public opinion?

The Supreme Court once saw peril in defying the will of the people. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is different.

- PETER K. ENNS AND PATRICK C. WOHLFARTH

THE SUPREME COURT will decide numerous politically and socially important cases throughout this term, with implications for redrafting congressional maps, campaign finance rules, the death penalty, transgender rights and much more on the docket. But do not expect the court’s decisions on these cases to honor the past.

Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court has shown a seeming hostility to the foundational concept of honoring precedent, and neither legal nor institutional precedent now constrain the justices' decisions to the extent they once did.

Legally, the court questioned 90 years of precedent by allowing President Trump to fire federal agency leaders without cause, and Justice Clarence Thomas has raised doubts about the foundations of some settled law, stating that precedent must be based on more than “just something that somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

Institutionally, the court has largely departed from historical patterns — especially since about 2016 — relying more on the “shadow docket” and showing less deference to lower courts, including overturning lower court rulings with little explanation.