Civil and Human Rights

Kennedy Retirement May Ignite Battle For Supreme Court

By Sloan Toth

With the current Supreme Court session quickly coming to a close, speculation has surfaced that Justice Anthony Kennedy might elect to retire from the the bench.

The pivotal vote in many court cases at the highest level, Kennedy’s projected retirement may ignite a heated battle for his seat, according to Fox News.

Kennedy’s possible retirement would mean a chance for the Trump administration to fill the vacancy with a Justice who might fill the shoes of Kennedy as the game-changing voice.

Good Morning America’s Terry Moran voiced his take on the possible loss of Kennedy, according to MRC:

“This would be huge… Justice Kennedy — this in many ways is the Kennedy Court, he’s the swing vote for more than a decade on crucial issues, abortion, affirmative action, the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans, including marriage. He has been the crucial vote. If he decides to retire, and there are signs that he would, it would be a war for this court like nothing seen in the past 30 years since the nomination of Robert Bork was defeated and Justice Kennedy took his seat.”

Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained Kennedy’s heavy influence on the Supreme Court.

“You can’t understand how important his affirmative action opinion is without understanding his earlier jurisprudence,” said Katyal.

“For decades, he has been the court’s most eloquent voice on the need to be color blind — why he changed his mind is something historians will debate for decades.”

Furthermore, Kennedy’s possible retirement is expected to shift the ideological balance.

“As the court’s most important Justice—at the center of the institution’s ideological balance—Justice Kennedy’s ability to bridge the divide between left and right on critical issues such as the right to access abortion cannot be overstated,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, according to Newsweek.

Wydra speculated that a Supreme Court replacement chosen by the Trump administration will probably move judgments in favor of more conservative political agendas.

“Replacing Justice Kennedy with a Trump nominee would almost certainly sound the death knell for [1973 abortion rights case “Roe v. Wade], just as candidate Trump promised during the 2016 campaign,” said Wydra.

Like many of his colleagues on the Supreme Court Bench, Kennedy’s age (80) has been a major talking point for those who anticipated his retirement.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump leveraged this discussion during his bid for The Oval Office, citing several judges who were getting along in years.

“If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway,” said Trump to Iowa Republican voters during the race for president, according to CNN.

“You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges. Have no choice, sorry, sorry, sorry. You have no choice.” 

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.