Fact check: How does Joe Biden's record on constitutional issues compare to previous presidents?

1. What people are claiming and why it matters — the headline assertions you’ll see everywhere

Analysts and news outlets converge on several headline claims about Biden’s constitutional record: a string of defeats at the Supreme Court, a record-setting pace of diverse federal judicial appointments, a contested public stance that the Equal Rights Amendment is now “the law of the land,” and a comparatively cooperative outcome in the federal documents inquiry into his handling of classified materials. Each claim matters because it frames both immediate legal outcomes and longer-term institutional balance—particularly as the Court’s rulings reshape federal power and rights protections ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.

2. The Supreme Court losses — a conservative majority reshaping constitutional contours

Multiple reports emphasize that Biden has suffered historic defeats at the Supreme Court on abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, and limits on agency power, attributing those losses largely to the Court’s conservative alignment and case selection rather than to unique missteps by the White House. Those decisions have materially narrowed federal regulatory authority and civil-rights claims, constraining policy tools the administration has relied upon. Observers frame these rulings as structural obstacles to the president’s constitutional agenda rather than isolated policy setbacks ^[1].

3. Building the bench — appointments that could alter the federal judiciary’s future

At the same time, Biden’s judicial appointment record—228 federal judges confirmed, including a notable proportion of women and racial or ethnic minorities—is presented as a strategic long game to influence constitutional interpretation in lower courts. Comparisons with prior administrations highlight similar overall totals to recent presidencies but emphasize demographic diversification as a deliberate administrative objective that could affect legal outcomes for decades, even as the Supreme Court currently sets immediate constitutional boundaries ^[2].

4. Documents and accountability — a contrasting legal outcome to a predecessor

Coverage contrasts Biden’s handling of classified documents with that of his predecessor, noting no charges against Biden following cooperation and lack of evidence of intent, while legal action proceeded against the former president for alleged obstruction and retention of documents. This juxtaposition is used to discuss constitutional questions about presidential accountability, executive privilege, and equal application of law. The reporting underscores how prosecutorial decisions and evidentiary findings shape public perceptions of constitutional norms and presidential conduct ^[4].

5. The Equal Rights Amendment flashpoint — law, politics, and archival authority

Biden’s public declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment is “the law of the land” collides with the National Archivist’s historical role and questions about ratification deadlines, framing a contested constitutional narrative. Analysts note that this claim raises immediate legal and institutional questions about certification processes, the archivist’s authority, and potential litigation, which could force courts to decide whether political statements can alter procedural requirements embedded in constitutional amendment practice. The dispute exemplifies how executive rhetoric can provoke constitutional and administrative pushback ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Civil rights and free speech — activism meets First Amendment complexity

The administration’s active civil-rights agenda and efforts to address misinformation on digital platforms have produced tension over First Amendment boundaries, with critics arguing the government risks encroaching on speech freedoms and supporters framing interventions as necessary to protect civil rights and democratic processes. The constitutional question centers on where enforcement and policy intersect with protected speech, leaving the judiciary—especially the Supreme Court—to adjudicate conflicting values and define permissible government action in the digital age ^{[6] [7]}.

7. How this compares to previous presidents — a mixed legacy in constitutional terms

Compared with recent presidents, Biden’s record is ambivalent: he has reshaped the lower courts in ways that may produce long-term constitutional shifts while suffering immediate, high-profile reversals at the Supreme Court that limit executive and legislative options. The pattern resembles other administrations that appoint lower-court judges as a long-term strategy while confronting a Supreme Court whose composition can sharply curtail near-term policy aims. Observers weigh short-term defeats against institutional investments that may pay off only over decades ^{[2] [1]}.

8. The practical implications — what to watch next and what’s missing from the headlines

Going forward, the most consequential elements are the interplay between short-term Supreme Court rulings and the long-term impact of Biden’s judicial nominees, the potential legal resolution of the ERA certification fight, and continued court challenges to executive actions on speech and rights enforcement. Missing from much coverage are detailed projections of how lower-court appointments will translate into doctrinal changes, and empirical analysis of how administrative practices might be redesigned to withstand conservative judicial scrutiny. These gaps will determine whether Biden’s constitutional legacy is defined by immediate losses or slow institutional change ^{[2] [3] [6]}.