Courts Matter: What We Can Learn from Callais and the Virginia Redistricting Case

Over the last few weeks, I’ve found myself returning to a pair of judicial decisions, decided just ten days apart­—the United States Supreme Court’s cataclysmic ruling in Louisiana v. Callais and the Virginia Supreme Court’s deeply troubling opinion in Scott v. McDougle.

In those ten days, the nation’s highest judicial body gutted the Voting Rights Act, directly and unconscionably attacking the civil rights of Black Americans, and Virginia’s highest court wiped away the will of the voters on a contorted reading of the word “election.”

These decisions lead to multiple, unmistakable conclusions—about race and political power, about asymmetries in how we conceive of fair representation, about unilateral disarmament.

Today, I want to briefly discuss one of those conclusions: Courts matter.

The right has long understood the power of courts. One need look no further than the infamous Powell Memo, written in 1971, in which future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell emphasized the Judiciary’s role as “the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.”

The right’s focus on transforming the courts continued for decades after the Powell Memo, driven in no small part by an unyielding effort to overturn Roe. As former Newsweek editor David Kaplan noted in an NPR interview in 2022, conservatives’ interest in returning to a pre-Roe America has “been the goal almost since the inception.”

And of course, this goal could not have been achieved absent dogged advocates in Congress and the Executive Branch. As then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2019 about his aims for the Judiciary: “My motto is: Leave no vacancy behind.”

Callais and Scott, then, are not simply the byproducts of this half-century effort to maximize corporate power and roll back the rights of women and people of color; they are the principal output.

So how should we respond?

At root, we must push to transform the courts with clear vision, discipline, and drive, as we work to create a Judiciary committed to the principles and values at the core of ACS’s mission: A belief in due process, equal protection, and access to justice.

Specifically, we must do the following:

First, government leaders on the left must make judicial nominations a top priority.

This means a commitment from future presidential administrations to put forward judicial nominations on their first day in office.

Based on our research, no President in modern history has put forward a slate of judicial nominees on that President’s Inauguration Day. Doing so would set the tone. ACS is proud to lead this charge; we hope others will join us in demanding this degree of prioritization.

It also means a progressive Senate that adopts the same aggressive approach to judicial nominations displayed by then-Majority Leader McConnell during President Trump’s first term in office.

During the Biden Administration, Chair Durbin, with the barest of majorities, moved judicial nominees quickly and efficiently through the Judiciary Committee. But once out of Committee, those same nominees languished on the floor. In fact, four circuit nominees never even received a vote from the full Senate at the end of 2024. This must not be repeated.

Second, we must redouble our efforts to transform state courts for the better.

The fact that so many state judicial seats are elected provides both an opportunity and a responsibility to put forward pro-democracy candidates from diverse professional and demographic backgrounds. Candidates who are committed to the ideals and values of ACS, including a belief in due process, equal protection, and access to justice.

Borrowing from McConnell, we should adopt the following motto for state judicial vacancies: Leave no seat unchallenged.

Third, and relatedly, we must do more to highlight the role and importance of the Judiciary, including the ways in which courts have rolled back hard-won constitutional freedoms and enabled hyper-partisan outcomes.

As part of this effort, ACS will increase our chapter-based programming on the power of courts, with a special emphasis on the impact and influence of state courts.

In a similar vein, over the course of 2026 and 2027, I will undertake a speaking tour highlighting the lessons I learned leading judicial nominations in the White House and Senate and how those lessons can be applied going forward.

The recent judicial elections in Georgia make clear that we have more work to do, both in informing the public and in recruiting candidates for office. We must learn from what happened in Georgia and apply those lessons in 2028 and beyond.

Finally, working with partner organizations, ACS will provide a platform for discussions on Supreme Court reform.

In doing so, ACS will not push particular avenues of reform; rather, we will provide the vehicle and venue for conversation and debate around one of the most pressing issues of the day. I look forward to providing more information about this effort in the coming months.

The conservative legal movement invested time and resources into its judicial transformation project, knowing it would take decades. It is past time for us to do the same. So, join me. Become an ACS member. Support us financially. Come to our National Convention, June 18-20 in Washington, D.C. And let’s get started making the courts work for all of us.

Federal Courts, Importance of the Courts, Judicial Nominations, Pipeline, State Courts