Through Legitimate Dissent, the Supreme Court Repairs Itself

The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, along with its reasoning, influence the direction and scope of historical events. Through an analysis of landmark dissents from four of the worst Supreme Court decisions, Curtis’ dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919), and Murphy’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States (1944), we can take steps towards catalyzing its self repair by stepping away from digital echo chambers and engaging in legitimate dissent. The four cases marked turning points in the efforts to protect civil rights and emboldened those efforts by bringing rampant systemic racism into the spotlight. In hindsight, the dissents discussed in this paper have triumphed in the moral arc of the universe, which is long because it bends towards justice. Taking inspiration from Philosophy and Political Science, this thesis advocates for a grassroots approach to repair our democratic institutions. Fixing the Supreme Court begins with engaging each other, disconnecting the ego from opinion, and not merely accepting information fed to us through our feeds. I will argue that the Supreme Court has a history of errors, with dissents that sought to protect minorities. Through these dissents, the court has evolved jurisprudence, providing resources for the next generations of civil rights advocates and leaders to create change. That change occurs only when we involve our fellow citizens in legitimate dissent, which I conclude is the solution to the crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court today.