Stephen Eustis: Are Pennsylvania’s Democratic Supreme Court Justices acting like politicians?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court wields significant authority over the state’s legal framework, shaping policies on election laws, emergency powers, and more. Since 2015, its 5-2 Democratic majority, including Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht, has driven decisions that, while often legally defensible, frequently align with one political perspective.

An examination of three pivotal 2020 rulings — on Covid-19 emergency powers, mail-in ballot deadlines, and the exclusion of the Green Party from the presidential ballot — reveals a concerning pattern. These decisions raise questions about whether Democratic justices are acting more like politicians than impartial arbiters, a trend that risks undermining public trust in the judiciary.

Start with Wolf v. Scarnati (2020), a case that tested the balance of power during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court was asked whether the state legislature could unilaterally terminate Governor Tom Wolf’s emergency declaration.

The majority, which included Justices Donohue, Wecht, and Dougherty, who wrote both concurring and dissenting opinions, ruled that the legislature’s resolution required the governor’s approval, citing the state Constitution’s presentment clause. This decision was rooted in a strict textual interpretation of the Constitution, often seen as a marker of judicial restraint. However, the practical effect was to bolster executive power at the expense of legislative authority, a move critics argue favored the Democratic governor’s agenda over the Republican-led legislature’s intent. The ruling preserved significant gubernatorial control during a crisis, but it also highlighted a potential bias toward one branch of government. While the legal reasoning was sound, the outcome aligned with Democratic priorities, raising concerns about whether the court was truly neutral or subtly advancing a political stance under the guise of constitutional fidelity.

Next, consider Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar (2020), where the court addressed mail-in voting during the pandemic. The majority, including Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht, allowed ballots to be counted if received up to three days after Election Day, citing postal delays and the state Constitution’s free and equal elections clause.

The court argued that strict deadlines could disenfranchise voters under extraordinary circumstances, a decision that aimed to protect voter access — a commendable goal. But the timing of the ruling, issued close to a highly contentious 2020 election, sparked significant backlash. Critics accused the court of judicial overreach, arguing that election rules should be set by the legislature, not the judiciary. The dissent emphasized this point, noting that such last-minute changes could destabilize electoral integrity and public confidence. This decision, while grounded in constitutional principles, its effect — potentially increasing voter turnout in a way that could favor Democratic candidates — fed perceptions of political bias. The justices may have intended to uphold voter rights, but the ruling’s proximity to the election and its potential to influence outcomes made it look more like a political maneuver than a neutral application of the law.

The court’s 2020 decision to remove the Green Party from the presidential ballot further complicates the picture. The majority, again including Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht, enforced strict compliance with election law, disqualifying the party for failing to submit proper nomination papers. On its surface, this ruling upheld statutory requirements, ensuring procedural fairness in the electoral process. However, the decision had a clear political impact: by removing a third-party candidate, it eliminated a potential vote-splitter in a tight race, a move that could disproportionately benefit one major party over another.

The dissent pointed out inconsistencies, noting that minor errors had been overlooked by larger parties in the past, suggesting a double standard in the court’s application of the law. While the ruling was legally defensible, its effect — potentially favoring Democratic interests by reducing electoral competition — added to the perception of a court whose decisions consistently tilted in one direction. This pattern, even if unintentional, fuels skepticism about the court’s impartiality.

In Boockvar, the court construed election law loosely; in the Green Party case, they construed it strictly. The only common thread is that both decisions benefited the Democratic Party. Judicial activism, regardless of the political leanings involved, erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter. 

When a court’s rulings consistently produce outcomes that benefit one political perspective, it risks being seen as an extension of that agenda rather than a fair interpreter of the law. The implications of this trend extend beyond these specific cases. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will play a critical role in shaping the state’s future on issues like redistricting, education funding, and voting rights. A court dominated by one political perspective may struggle to reflect the diverse views of Pennsylvanians, potentially alienating segments of the population who feel their interests are not represented. Public trust in the judiciary hinges on its ability to remain above partisan fray, serving as a check on governmental power without appearing to favor one side. The current 5-2 Democratic majority, with its history of rulings that align with one party’s interests, risks undermining that trust, creating a perception of bias that could have lasting consequences for the court’s legitimacy.

A judiciary that reflects a broader range of perspectives is better equipped to interpret the Constitution and laws in a way that serves all Pennsylvanians, not just one segment of the political spectrum. Achieving this balance doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting qualified justices, but it does require acknowledging when a court’s trajectory seems to mirror political priorities rather than impartial justice.

The pattern of decisions from Pennsylvania’s Democratic justices — upholding executive power, altering election rules, and limiting ballot access in ways that consistently benefit one side — suggests a need for greater scrutiny. If the judiciary is to maintain its role as a neutral arbiter, it must prioritize fairness and diversity of thought over outcomes that, intentionally or not, resemble political maneuvering. The stakes are high for Pennsylvania’s legal system, and addressing these concerns is crucial to ensuring a judiciary that truly serves the public interest.

Stephen Eustis, Jr. is a Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania resident studying political science at Southern New Hampshire University (Sept. ’25). Connect with me on X @sjeustisjr.