The Lawyer Jonathan Mitchell’s Mission to Undermine Judicial Supremacy: A Profile

Title: Lawyer Jonathan Mitchell’s Mission to Undermine Judicial Supremacy

On the day that the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, lawyer Jonathan Mitchell was at the National Association of Christian Lawmakers conference, where he was set to receive an award for his role in enabling the most successful pro-life legislation to date. Mitchell authored the legislation that effectively ended abortion access in Texas and Oklahoma while Roe was still in effect. As news of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling broke at the conference, Mitchell witnessed tears of joy and relief among attendees who believed in divine intervention.

Unlike most lawyers and legal scholars, Mitchell does not find it troubling that states, following his advice, nullified a constitutional right before the Supreme Court did. His mission is to undermine the Court as the final authority on the Constitution’s meaning. Mitchell’s tactics involve drafting statutes that insulate state laws from judicial review, effectively challenging the Court’s authority.

Mitchell’s Senate Bill 8 in Texas banned abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, a ban that had not survived constitutional challenges in court before. By empowering private citizens to enforce the ban through lawsuits, Mitchell circumvented the Court’s abortion precedents. Despite criticism from Justices, the Court largely acquiesced in shielding the statute from judicial review, setting a precedent that troubled many.

Mitchell’s goal is to destroy judicial supremacy, the idea that the Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitution’s meaning. He believes in supporting legislative defiance of unfavorable precedents, regardless of political affiliation. Mitchell’s deep-rooted beliefs in textualism and originalism have guided his legal career, leading him to challenge the Court’s authority.

Despite his controversial views and tactics, Mitchell is respected for his principled stance against judicial supremacy. His mission to cut down the judiciary’s power has led him to take on consequential cases and advocate for a reevaluation of the Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution. Mitchell’s unwavering commitment to his beliefs has sparked debate and reflection on the balance of power in the legal system.