Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does Joe Biden's record on constitutional issues compare to that of his predecessors?
Executive Summary
President Joe Biden’s record on constitutional issues is mixed: his administration secured a substantial number of federal judicial appointments and prioritized diversity on the bench, yet the Supreme Court frequently rejected the administration’s positions on major constitutional and regulatory matters, producing a series of high-profile losses [1] [2]. Observers dispute how Biden’s approach compares with predecessors, with defenders pointing to judicial appointments and rights-focused actions while critics highlight repeated Supreme Court defeats and contested executive practices such as surveillance and regulatory assertions [1] [2] [3]. Below is a multi-source analysis that places these claims in context and contrasts competing interpretations.
1. Why the Judiciary Appointments Matter — The Long Game on Constitutional Law
Biden’s judicial appointment record is often presented as a structural, long-term influence on constitutional interpretation because federal judges serve lifetime terms and shape doctrine for decades; by early 2025 he had appointed 228 federal judges and increased representation of women and racial minorities, representing over a quarter of active federal judges [1]. That numerical fact underscores an institutional strategy similar to past presidents who sought durable influence through the bench, but the immediate legal landscape was also shaped by a conservative Supreme Court that frequently rejected the administration’s constitutional arguments, demonstrating that appointments’ effects unfold over time rather than delivering immediate doctrinal victories [2] [1]. This tension between near-term defeats and long-term institutional positioning frames many comparisons to predecessors.
2. The Supreme Court’s Pushback — A Series of High-Profile Losses
The Supreme Court delivered a string of rulings that undermined the Biden administration’s constitutional and regulatory objectives, overturning positions on subjects such as abortion, gun regulation, and college admissions, while narrowing agency power — an outcome framed by analysts as historic in its frequency and scope [2]. Those defeats contrast with earlier eras in which presidents sometimes saw more favorable high-court outcomes; however, the interpretation depends on whether one emphasizes short-term litigation results or long-term court composition. The pattern of rulings aligns with broader shifts at the Court toward originalist or conservative readings, complicating simple comparisons across administrations [2] [4].
3. Constitutional Philosophy and the Rise of Originalism — The Intellectual Backdrop
The contemporary Supreme Court’s decisions reflect a broader intellectual shift toward originalism, propelled in the late 20th century by figures such as Robert Bork, Edwin Meese III, and Antonin Scalia — a movement that reframed constitutional debates and affects how Biden-era cases are decided [4]. Commentators and scholars dispute originalism’s historical fidelity and practical consequences: some argue it returns to textual roots, while critics say it ignores complex historical context, particularly on issues like the Electoral College and presidential immunity [4] [5]. This ideological environment helps explain why the administration’s constitutional positions met resistance irrespective of personnel or policy choices.
4. Civil Rights and Executive Actions — A Mixed Record Compared to Predecessors
Biden’s administration pursued civil and human rights actions through executive orders and agency measures, presenting a contrast to predecessors who either rescinded or pursued different priorities, but the administration also faced questions about legal footing in areas such as surveillance law (Section 702) [6] [3]. Critics note Biden defended Section 702 aspects even when some argued they were constitutionally problematic, indicating a pragmatic executive posture that sometimes prioritized continuity of security tools over expansive constitutional reform [3]. Comparatively, predecessors like Trump used executive orders to reverse prior policies, revealing how presidential constitutional influence often operates through administrative acts as much as litigation.
5. Competing Narratives — Political Messaging vs. Legal Reality
Political defenders presented Biden’s push for a diverse judiciary and civil rights initiatives as a durable constitutional legacy, while critics emphasized court losses and controversial executive stances to argue limited success [1] [2] [3]. The two narratives reflect differing metrics: one values structural change (judicial appointments, agency rulemaking), the other values immediate doctrinal wins at the Supreme Court. Both are factual but selective; the administration’s appointment numbers are verifiable and significant [1], and the Court’s rulings against the administration are documented and consequential [2], demonstrating how comparisons depend on which institutional effects observers prioritize.
6. What’s Missing and What to Watch — Contextual Gaps and Future Indicators
Analyses provided here leave open key comparisons: the long-term influence of Biden’s judicial appointees relative to predecessors will only be measurable over decades, and the ongoing ideological trajectory of the Supreme Court and future appointments will shape whether current losses translate into enduring doctrinal shifts [1] [4]. Observers should track subsequent appointment patterns, lower-court decisions by Biden appointees, and any legislative or constitutional responses to high-court rulings to assess whether Biden’s structural gains offset immediate judicial setbacks. The interplay between short-term litigation outcomes and long-term institutional change remains the decisive lens for comparing presidents on constitutional influence [2] [1] [6].