When Justice Fails: The Supreme Court, Policing, and the Erosion of Civil Rights
The Supreme Court has long been seen as the guardian of American liberty, entrusted with upholding the Constitution and protecting individual rights. At its best, the Court has expanded civil liberties through landmark rulings such as Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), ensuring due process protections against unlawful searches and coerced confessions. But at its worst, the Court has narrowed these rights, as in Terry v. Ohio (1968) and through its continued defense of qualified immunity for law enforcement. These decisions have enabled discriminatory policing practices and made it nearly impossible to hold officers accountable for civil rights abuses. Recent tragedies, including the brutal killing of Tyre Nichols in 2023, underscore the devastating consequences when legal institutions fail to enforce equal protections. If the Court cannot strike the right balance between public safety and constitutional rights, the promise of American justice risks becoming an empty ideal.
Expanding Rights Through Landmark Cases
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court incorporated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures into state and local law, applying them through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. By extending the exclusionary rule, the Court prevented illegally obtained evidence from being used in criminal prosecutions—a powerful safeguard against government overreach. Similarly, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) reinforced due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, requiring that law enforcement inform suspects of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during interrogation. In both cases, the Court sided with defendants accused of serious crimes, affirming that constitutional rights must be upheld regardless of the offense. These rulings reflected the principle that liberty is only secure when protections apply universally.
Retreating from Protections
Yet the Court has also weakened these very rights. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), it lowered the threshold for police searches, permitting “stop and frisk” practices based on “reasonable suspicion” rather than probable cause. This shift opened the door to widespread racial profiling, disproportionately targeting Black and Latino men, and normalizing policing practices that skirt constitutional limits. More recently, the doctrine of qualified immunity has further shielded officers from accountability, making civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement nearly impossible to win. Despite high-profile cases of brutality, such as the beating death of Tyre Nichols, only about 2% of officers are convicted in cases involving fatal shootings or misconduct.
Why It Matters
The Court’s dual role—as both an expander and restrictor of rights—demonstrates how fragile civil liberties can be when legal protections are left to interpretation. Advocates of broad police powers often argue that flexibility is necessary to fight crime, but history shows that unchecked authority breeds discrimination, injustice, and abuse. By prioritizing law enforcement discretion over constitutional guarantees, the Court risks eroding public trust in both the justice system and democracy itself.
The Path Forward
For American democracy to thrive, the Court must uphold its responsibility to apply the Constitution equally—to the powerless and the powerful alike. This means reexamining precedents that permit discriminatory policing and reconsidering doctrines, like qualified immunity, that undermine accountability. True justice requires not just expanding rights in theory, but protecting them in practice. Until then, the ideal that “no one is above the law” will remain out of reach.
