By Kristi Pelzel
On September 18th, 2020, liberal-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, leaving behind a legacy of hard-fought battles for women’s rights and a vacant seat for the current conservative-leaning President, Donald Trump, to fill. It’s an historic moment and one that will impact foreign policy for years to come.
Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. They are all appointed by whoever is the sitting President of the United States of America when a seat becomes vacant by death or retirement. Then, Congress, more specifically the Senate, confirms the new Justice through a vote after several hearings, much like an intensive job interview.
It will be President Trump’s third Supreme Court appointment in just four-years, a record for a sitting President considering how long the average tenure of a sitting Justice. The Supreme Court is the highest in the United States of America’s federal judiciary, providing decisions and dissenting opinions over federal and state court rulings. With U.S. domestic policy so interconnected with the international system, the Justices who make up the Supreme Court affect foreign relations, aid, and policy.
Balancing the number of Justices leaning liberally and conservatively is a debate that’s started up again, reaching global headlines. With the current vacancy, created with the passing of Justice Ginsburg, the President could appoint an additional conservative Justice, making the Supreme Court an overwhelmingly conservative body, impacting national and international affairs.
Four key areas that focus on national interests that impact foreign policy. They include “the protection of the U.S. and its citizens, access to critical resources and markets, the preservation of a balance of power in the world, and the protection of human rights and democracy. The June 2020 case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, is an example of how domestic policy influences foreign policy and how the Supreme Court can finalize and approve the impacts.
The Supreme Court held that it is the government’s prerogative to require foreign organizations to comply with their U.S. commitments to receive funding based on U.S. foreign aid serving U.S. interests.
Said another way, imagine that a predominantly conservative Congress passes a conservative law, and when liberal Congress Members challenge it, it’s sent to a predominantly conservative Supreme Court to make the final ruling. These political leanings affect foreign policy, aid, and relations.
The Trump administration proposed cuts to foreign aid and international diplomacy in his 2020 budget, 43 U.S. senators signed a bipartisan letter urging against the reductions. When these matters go through the United States’ legal system, the makeup of the people we have appointed from local levels to the Supreme Court will determine how the United States shifts in their alignment with the rest of the world.
U.S.-based ABC News reported in October of 2019 that Russia has already moved in where the United States of American moved away from high-level engagement in Africa.
“Russia’s trade with Africa almost tripled from $6.6 billion in 2010 to $18.9 billion last year,” Judd Devermont, Director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued in a 2019, Federal News Network article. Beginning in 2019, Russia began aggressively courting African countries, with an emphasis on West Africa. Now, the Russia-Africa Summit will be held every three years with foreign ministers meeting annually, said Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, a stark contrast from 2018 and before.
There are potential Russian threats of influencing African elections, money laundering, and increased arms sales. Russia is not the only competitor courting the region. China has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in railways, airports, and other projects in Africa.
While the United States decides how to handle the newly vacant Supreme Court seat’s appointment, international partners and competitors will be watching, following the pattern of influence as laws move through the legal system and become new realities for U.S. citizens working and partnering in international fields.
Bio: Kristi Pelzel is an international communications consultant and advisor working across U.S. and African markets. She is a global news correspondent for KAFTAN TV. Her industry experience spans 10-years in broadcast, digital, and social media communication, emphasizing strategic planning, and creative design. Kristi holds a B.A. from the Academy of Art University, San Francisco, California, and an M.A. from Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
These issues are so key for not only US citizens, but also how the US operates on the world stage. Thank you for laying this out so perfectly.
You rightly drew our attention to the draining of the U.S. influence in Africa. And the passing of RBG will no doubt increase this bleed. United States Supreme Court has always run roughshod in the last few decades over many of the critical rule of law principles that limit the role politics can play in judicial decision-making. From upending the will of the people and handing to the looser of the 2000 election the presidency in Bush v. Gore, to giving cover to the current president in an attempt to insulate him from prosecution. With the potential installation of another conservative jurist before the year runs out, we’ll see an overt disregard for the democratic process, and zero respect for precedent.
This, undoubtedly will permanently change the way America is viewed worldwide.
So overall I think, yea they have some foreign affairs impact, but it’s not like the Supreme Court is making big international decisions all the time. Just really specific ones that, some way, relate to US law or US citizens, connected in some way. It’s gray area.