“We the People.”

They’re the opening words of the U.S. Constitution, and they’re meant to act as the foundation for American democracy. The average American has known these words since primary school, when the importance of the Constitution was initially drilled into us. We learn that we are important stakeholders in American democracy– we are decision-makers in the democratic process and our priorities are the most important factor to our political representatives. 

As we grow up in an age of intense political polarization and become increasingly conscious of the inner workings of the systems that govern us, it becomes clear that democracy is not so black and white. Elected officials have external interests that drive their policymaking, the selection of the executive branch often only satisfies half of the electorate and one of the most powerful governing bodies, the Supreme Court, is not even selected by the individuals it seeks to represent. We are much further from those that represent us than we were taught to believe growing up. 

That is why when 16 pages of memos were leaked regarding the Supreme Court’s 2016 shadow docket decision to halt President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, people were stunned to see that Supreme Court justices are not actually untouchable, emotionless entities that make decisions without any regard for their impact. Instead, they highlight a side of the Supreme Court that seems almost dystopian to the distant image of SCOTUS that is redundant in public media.  

The New York Times describes the Supreme Court justices as, “addressing one another by their first names and signing off with their initials, they sound notes of irritation, air grievances and plead for more time. In addition to the usual legal materials, they cite a blog post and, twice, a television interview. They sometimes engage with one another’s arguments. But they often simply talk past each other.” 

Here, the regularly criticized shadow docket, which is seen as limiting the justices’ ability to fully engage in thoughtful deliberation, is depicted in a way that suggests there is debate in these emergency decisions– perhaps just a lack of formal, courtroom debate. 

This moment feels like an indication of what American democracy is built on– normal deliberation between normal people about important ideas. When we see important SCOTUS decisions as the products of debates between privileged and educated individuals speaking in language that the average American likely does not understand, we are less likely to care about the decisions. They feel so far outside of us that we check out completely. When we have access to documents like these, where justices are seen interacting with each other in a seemingly relatable and normal way, we feel more attached to the judicial decisions and legislative frameworks that govern us. 

Perhaps this leakage was a good thing. Perhaps it shows the average American that we have the capacity to understand and engage in conversations about major Supreme Court cases and legislation. And perhaps more public exposure to the internal workings of the Supreme Court will allow American democracy to return to the foundation that it is built on: participation by The People.