Lauge Risom Koch 
A legal analyst has accused the US Supreme Court of having a “self-serving” interest in helping Republicans retain control of Congress ahead of the midterm elections.
A legal analyst has argued that the US Supreme Court may have a vested interest in helping Republicans retain control of Congress, claiming that future investigations into the court could depend on the outcome of the next midterm elections.
The comments come as the court prepares to consider another election-related case that could have significant implications for voting procedures across the United States.
Concerns raised
According to Raw Story, Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research and co-host of the Legal AF podcast, said the Supreme Court has increasingly intervened in election-related disputes.
She pointed to the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which allowed Louisiana to redraw its congressional map, arguing that it signaled a willingness to become involved in electoral matters during an election cycle.
Graves claimed the decision departed from the court’s previous reluctance to intervene in elections while they were underway.
Upcoming case
According to Raw Story, Graves said the stakes are particularly high because the court is expected to rule on a Mississippi case involving mail-in ballots.
The case could help determine how long states may continue counting ballots received after Election Day.
“All bets are off because we know the Roberts court has been actively, aggressively intervening in our elections while elections are underway,” Graves said.
She also argued that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have long opposed certain voting-rights protections.
Allegations of self-interest
Graves further suggested that the court has a practical reason to prefer a Republican-controlled Congress.
According to Raw Story, she argued that a Democratic majority would be more likely to launch investigations into ethical controversies involving members of the Supreme Court.
“If Congress were to become controlled by Democrats, there would probably be a robust investigation of this Roberts court,” Graves said.
She described that possibility as a “self-serving interest” that could influence how some observers interpret the court’s actions.
Ethics questions
The analyst cited ongoing scrutiny involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
According to Raw Story, critics have raised questions about Thomas’s financial disclosures and a loan connected to a recreational vehicle, while Alito has faced scrutiny over luxury trips reportedly funded by wealthy benefactors.
“There’s a lot of investigations that need to take place,” Graves said.
Sources: Raw Story, Legal AF podcast, True North Research
