All Eyes Are on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Integrity is doing the right thing — even if nobody is watching. However, after this month's election, it’s clear that Pennsylvanians are watching. Our recently retained justices — Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht — must honor their oaths and do the right thing because the good people of our great commonwealth have their eyes on them.

Let’s travel back in time for some context.

Believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago in Pennsylvania when we didn’t think of judges as partisan or political. Our judges upheld the Constitution, safeguarded its principles, and ensured that laws and government action remained within its bounds.

Judges respected the separation of powers, meaning that they did not rewrite legislation. Instead, they closely examined the words and interpreted laws in accordance with legislative intent, ensuring these decisions reflected the purpose and values intended by the legislature, not their own preferences.

Unfortunately, many think those days are gone. Sadly, Pennsylvania has entered an era where partisan decision-making has replaced the fair and impartial resolution of disputes that is a bedrock of our great republic.

This partisanship is what turned this year’s usually sleepy off-year election into a national spectacle. At stake were three seats on our highest court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Three justices — Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht — were up for retention, meaning their ten-year terms were coming to an end. Voters had to decide whether to retain them and give them ten more years.

The election garnered national attention and millions of out-of-state campaign dollars, which favored the pro-retention side. In fact, the pro-retention campaign spent four times more money, safeguarding the three justices from removal.

The justices in question have issued some of the most polarizing decisions in Pennsylvania’s history.

For example, the controversy over the current congressional legislative maps underscores this dilemma perfectly. In 2018, lawmakers failed to agree on a redistricting plan, so the justices — specifically, the three up for retention — selected their own map. Never mind that the Pennsylvania Constitution says this is within the purview of the legislature, not the courts. Regardless, the justices overstepped their authority, undermining separation of powers and the legislative process, and picked a partisan map that gave their party a competitive edge. This judicial overreach left a lasting mark on how Pennsylvanians perceive the high court’s neutrality or lack thereof.

This partisanship also came to a head during Covid. Business owners and concerned citizens raised the alarm when Gov. Tom Wolf unilaterally shuttered commerce and imposed strict regulations. He overstepped the state constitution and infringed on individual freedoms. Justices Donohue and Wecht sided with the governor’s mandates, legitimized executive overreach, and abandoned their duty to defend constitutional freedoms. It took two constitutional amendments passed by Pennsylvania voters to rein them in.

Unfortunately, these are not the only partisan decisions I could highlight, but my space here is limited.

Many Pennsylvanians are gravely concerned about whether additional partisan impropriety looms on the horizon for future cases. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were primed to to decide the fate of the commonwealth’s membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI ) — a carbon tax imposed by Gov. Wolf that the Commonwealth Court ruled unconstitutional.

Gov. Josh Shapiro, who appealed that decision, also campaigned heavily to retain Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht. Thankfully, lawmakers officially codified Pennsylvania’s exit from RGGI with the newly enacted state budget. If the court had sided with Shapiro, it would have been not to perceive this decision as anything other than a blatant conflict of interest and quid pro quo.

Partisanship is inherently antithetical to judicial impartiality. Judges are supposed to call balls and strikes, not play the game. When judges put their thumbs on the scale, they tip the balance and undermine the rule of law.

The perception of bias can also be corrosive. The power of justice derives not from the ability of a judge to enforce a ruling, but from the public’s willingness to accept that ruling as fair and legitimate. When citizens believe that judges are acting as political agents rather than neutral arbiters, public trust is shattered.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is the oldest appellate court in America — even older than the U.S. Supreme Court — and is a judicial model for other states. The court must demonstrate that justice — not politics — guides its decision-making. The stakes could not be higher. Pennsylvania’s high court must act with independence and impartiality, restoring public trust in a system that desperately needs it. The good people of our great commonwealth deserve no less.

Until then, Pennsylvanians — and the country — will be watching.