Federal Courts Face Environmental and Structural Pressures
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied two petitions seeking review of the Federal Aviation Administration's environmental assessment for a major air cargo facility at San Bernardino International Airport, according to Climate analysis, highlighting broader tensions within the federal judiciary as lawmakers continue debating court restructuring proposals that would fundamentally alter the Supreme Court's composition.
Circuit-Level Environmental Decisions Under Scrutiny
The rejected petitions, filed by environmental groups including the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and Sierra Club, along with the State of California, challenged the FAA's environmental review process for the southern California airport project. The majority opinion dismissed arguments that the agency's geographical study boundaries failed to capture the project's true environmental impacts on air quality and socioeconomic conditions, according to Climate.
California argued that the project would result in significant impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, but the federal court found the state had not successfully refuted the environmental assessment's conclusion that the project's greenhouse gas emissions would comprise less than 1 percent of U.S. and global emissions, according to Climate. Despite this relatively small global impact, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional emissions thresholds would be exceeded by the project.
Supreme Court Expansion Debates Continue
These circuit-level environmental rulings occur against a backdrop of ongoing discussions about federal court structure, particularly proposals to expand the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13, representing the first proposed change to the Court's size since 1869, according to Cambridge research.
Introduced by Democratic lawmakers including the House Judiciary Committee chair and co-sponsored by more than 60 members during the 117th Congress, the legislation followed extensive Supreme Court expansion discussions during the 2020 presidential campaign, according to Cambridge. However, President Biden's commission ultimately declined to recommend Court expansion, and the Judiciary Act of 2021 failed to advance in either house despite Democratic control.
Historical Context and Political Momentum
Court-packing has regained momentum at the federal level in recent years, marking a significant shift from decades of political marginalization following the backlash that defeated Franklin Roosevelt's attempted Supreme Court expansion in 1937, according to Cambridge analysis. The renewed interest reflects changing political norms, with Democratic party leaders embracing positions that would have been considered extreme just years earlier.
The current composition tensions stem partly from recent confirmation battles, including Neil Gorsuch's confirmation with only 54 votes after Senate rules changed to bar filibusters of Supreme Court nominations. The Republican-controlled Senate's refusal to consider any Obama nominee during Barack Obama's last year of presidency, followed by Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation days before the 2020 presidential election despite previous Republican opposition to election year appointments, has intensified calls for structural reform.
Campaign Finance and Electoral Pressures
These judicial debates unfold amid massive campaign spending that influences federal elections and judicial nominations. Presidential candidates raised nearly $2.5 billion and spent $2.3 billion in the first 15 months of the 2019-2020 election cycle, according to Nossaman analysis. This unprecedented fundraising level reflects the high stakes surrounding federal court appointments and their long-term policy implications.
Congressional candidates during the same period raised $1.4 billion and spent $806.3 million, while political parties raised $1.1 billion and spent $812.8 million, according to Nossaman. Political action committees contributed over $3.7 billion in raised funds and $3.1 billion in spending, demonstrating the extensive financial resources flowing through federal elections that ultimately determine judicial appointments.
International Context and Democratic Pressures
The United States faces judicial independence challenges similar to those affecting other democracies, including Hungary, Israel, and Poland, where judicial crises have roiled national politics in recent years, according to Cambridge research. These international examples provide context for American debates about court structure and independence, as elected officials increasingly target courts across multiple democratic systems.
Five of the Court's six Republican justices represent a significant ideological shift that has prompted Democratic lawmakers to consider structural reforms. The concentration of conservative appointments, particularly those confirmed under contested circumstances, has fueled arguments for expanding the Court to restore ideological balance.
Looking Forward: Institutional Stability
The intersection of circuit court environmental decisions and Supreme Court restructuring debates reveals broader tensions within federal judicial systems. Environmental cases like the San Bernardino airport review demonstrate how lower courts handle complex regulatory challenges that may eventually reach higher courts, while structural reform proposals suggest fundamental disagreements about judicial composition and independence.
As courts continue processing environmental reviews and other regulatory challenges, the ongoing debates about Supreme Court expansion reflect deeper questions about institutional stability and democratic governance. The failure of recent expansion proposals, despite significant Democratic support, suggests that major structural changes face substantial political obstacles even when proposed by prominent lawmakers with extensive co-sponsorship.