The Anti-Gun Left’s Solution to Consistent SCOTUS Losses: Pack the Court

November’s mid-term elections are four months away. For all intents and purposes, though, they’re already here and anti-gun politicians in Washington, D.C., are signaling that what’s actually at stake is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) made it clear that expanding and overhauling the nation’s highest court to bend to an anti-gun agenda, through a scheme known as SCOTUS court packing, is “absolutely” in play.

Congresswoman Jayapal made the remarks when she appeared on MS NOW’s “On The Line,” according to Breitbart, when she was asked by host Alicia Menednez, “Before I let you go real quick, you’ve advocated for expanding the court from 9 to 13 seats. Is that now a conversation that is happening inside the caucus?”

Rep. Jayapal was unequivocal.

“Absolutely it is. Absolutely,” she said. “I mean, look, we need a Supreme Court that is not beholden to corporate interests to any president, but is actually willing to interpret the law and not reinterpret it and revisit settled decisions. And this court has shown over and over again that it is incapable of doing that.”

Target: SCOTUS Court Packing Plans

Rep. Jayapal isn’t the only one. U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D- Mass.) told MS NOW about legislation he introduced to expand the Supreme Court by four seats, claiming that two seats were “stolen” from Democrats in 2026 and 2020, according to Breitbart. And Pennsylvania’s Gov. Josh Shapiro, rumored to be considering a White House run on the Democratic ticket in 2028, joined the MS NOW parade to say, “I think everything needs to be on the table. I think we need radical reform…” Breitbart reported.

That’s a flashing red-light alarm for those concerned about Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court handed down two pro-Second Amendment decisions this year. The Court ruled 6-3 in Wolford v. Lopez that Second Amendment rights cannot bend to the “spirit of Aloha” and Hawaii couldn’t flip the default rule regarding concealed carrying and require gun owners with active permits to obtain permission from property owners to bring their firearms on to private property that is open to the public. That decision also effectively invalidated similar laws in California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Hemani that the federal law prohibiting an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” cannot bar individuals who use marijuana recreationally from possessing firearms. The Court held that the law, as applied to the marijuana user in the case, did not satisfy the Bruen “history and tradition” test. That framework is a bulwark against governmental infringement, as it considers whether the challenged law is consistent with the historical understanding of the of the right to keep and bear arms by asking whether relevantly similar laws were in effect when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.

And big decisions are coming. The Supreme Court just granted review of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which involve challenges to state bans on modern sporting rifles, a decision that’s long been sought by NSSF. A Supreme Court that’s comprised 6-3 majority of originalists and textualists, could be upended by packing the Court with four additional justices that could perform legal gymnastics to reverse the Bruen decision.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gives the clearest insight. She framed the Wolford v. Lopez decision as one of property rights, not Second Amendment rights. Justice Jackson dissented, relying in part on unconstitutional Black Codes that were designed to suppress the rights of freed slaves in America to justify property rights that would infringe on Second Amendment rights.

“It might well be that the Black Codes are invalid inputs for Bruen‘s test,” Justice Jackson wrote, “but only if they violated the Second Amendment — which may or may not be the case.”

In fact, Justice Jackson clearly stated in her dissent that “For what it is worth, I think Bruen was wrongly decided.”

This is what Rep. Jayapal and her fellow anti-gun politicians want of the Supreme Court. They want justices who will bend the law to meet their vision of a diminished — and ultimately neutered — Second Amendment. With that, comes a defunct firearm industry unable to serve law-abiding citizens with the means to exercise those rights.

It comes as no surprise. Former President Joe Biden published a fact sheet on his plan to upset the balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government to appease these radicals. There’s also a history of U.S. senators displaying open hostility to the Supreme Court when they don’t decide cases in their favor. Who can forget Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) threatening justices while standing on the Supreme Court steps?

He drew widespread rebuke, especially from Chief Justice John Roberts, after Sen. Schumer said, “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh – you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and is Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights. He submitted an amicus brief that even The Washington Post called “incendiary” against the Supreme Court.

Sen. Whitehouse introduced a bill in 2023, S. 3096 – the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, that mirrors the Biden-Harris plan to upset the courts. It would limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years. The legislation calls for presidents to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court every two years and appoint one of those nominated jurors with the advice and consent of the Senate. Only the nine most-recently appointed justices would sit for appellate cases.

The Stage is Set

That’s, in essence, what Rep. Jayapal is warning will happen if anti-gun politicians take control of the Senate in November.

“We need to expand the court. We need term limits, and we need an ethics and transparency standard that matches other courts,” Breitbart reported of Rep. Jayapal’s interview. “That’s why Elizabeth Warren and I have introduced that bill around ethics and transparency. All of that needs to happen, and I think the Supreme Court is making it incredibly clear that we need to make those changes.”

That’s not happening without a fight. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently published an op-ed in The Federalist decrying this blatant power grab.

“As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a lifelong Iowa farmer, I understand the futility of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted,” Chairman Grassley wrote. “That’s why I support a constitutional amendment to keep nine Supreme Court justices on the bench at a time. As our nation celebrates the 250th birthday of America, we must safeguard the independence of the federal judiciary to protect our constitutional freedoms and way of life for generations to come.”

That protection against the Supreme Court getting packed and becoming a rubber stamp for anti-gun policies begins with the voters. Decision day is Nov. 3, but the pressure to protect it is now.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.