Is Christian nationalism a significant influence on some USSC decisions?

A Christian statement of opposition 

to Christian nationalism 

Me and some others have been arguing that CN (Christian nationalism) is a significant bad influence on American politics and society. In my opinion, some recent USSC decisions by the Roberts court evince the influence of CN ideology or dogma. However as far as I know, none of those decisions mentions Christianity or CN as an influencing factor or source of authority. Many people believe that unless USSC judges explicitly mention God, the CN movement or CN dogma as a source of influence or authority, it is irrational and unreasonable to ascribe any religious influence on MAGA judges on the USSC. That is an argument I strongly disagree with.

In the following analysis, keep in mind that for human beings it is very hard, probably impossible, for a judge to completely separate their moral values and beliefs from their perceptions of reality and reasoning, both conscious and unconscious. This is a complicating factor that cannot be avoided or denied. We just have to work with it.

What CN is

One source comments: There is no clean and tidy definition of Christian nationalism since it is not a formal religious denomination or sect with a stated doctrine of beliefs; nor is there any single person or council leading Christian nationalism that oversees followers.  

CN thus lacks a formal doctrine or centralized leadership. It generally represents a belief system that advocates for the fusion of Christian identity with American national identity. Religious scholars and sociologists describe it as the belief that the United States is fundamentally defined by Christianity and should maintain this character through government action and policy. CN's core beliefs are (1) the government should preserve America's Christian roots and identity, (2) laws and policies should explicitly reflect Christian values**, (3) the separation of church and state is not a binding principle, and (4) God has a divine plan for America as a Christian nation.

** I thought that our laws already reflected Christian values because our laws, law enforcement and courts are overwhelmingly dominated by Christians and that has always been the case. What CN means here is CN values, not other Christian values that CN dogma hates, e.g., secularism, pluralism and democracy.

  

Two sociologists describe CN like this: CN is "a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life." Christian nationalists see secular and pluralistic principles represent ahistorical aberrations in desperate need of correction. One of the sociologists commented that Trump's January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and coup attempt was "as Christian nationalist as it gets." Many of the participants said they were motivated by Christian ideology. 

Finally, some experts see the power of the CN movement as mostly a political wealth and power movement (~80%?) than a purely Christian fundamentalist movement (~20%?). From that point of view, Christianity is mostly a stalking horse that hides the CN's corruption and theocratic intent. In that vision, CN is primarily a political ideology that uses religious language and symbols to advance secular power objectives. CN's use of Christian identity to exclude others and consolidate political power is evidence that the movement subordinates religious teachings to political goals when politically expedient.

What is the evidence of CN influence on the USSC?

Because the US Constitution is a secular document that protects all religions, Republican USSC judges cannot explicitly mention God, CN ideology or any CN dogma as an authority or influence. In my firm opinion, it is nonsense to say there is no influence of CN ideology or dogma on the Republican judges because they said nothing about any religion or dogma. Those judges are not stupid. They have the power to never mention God, CN or Christian authority or dogma while still obliterating the Establishment Clause, dismantling church-state separation and gutting civil liberties that God disapproves of, including abortion, universal voting eights, minority protections, and same-sex marriage. None of those judges will ever mention God in their decisions, but that does not mean that God or his dogma has no influence. Common sense, cognitive biology and social behavior all say there is going to be at least some influence.

Therefore, one needs to look for indirect or circumstantial evidence of CN influence on the USSC.

Since John Roberts assumed the role of Chief Justice in 2005 evidence of CN’s influence has become apparent. CN dogma can be found in USSC decisions, the role of CN-aligned MAGA elites in judicial selection, the transparency of nomination processes, and the ideological impact on cases involving LGBTQ+ rights are all in alignment with CN dogma. The vetting process for judicial appointments are opaque and strategic. The public simply has no empirical basis to independently decide about what will guide decisions of a court nominee. We just has to trust a MAGA political process that has clearly proven itself to be untrustworthy. 

The Roberts Court has consistently reinterpreted the First Amendment’s religion clauses to favor CN interests. For example, the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2025) cases expanded free exercise and free speech protections for businesses opposing LGBTQ rights. Those decisions align with the CN-driven agenda to elevate CN morality over secular law. 

Religion cases under Roberts show a pronounced tilt, with 9 out of 10 rulings on Establishment and Free Exercise Clause disputes between 2005–2018 favoring Christian positions. That aligns with the CN objective of embedding “biblical principles” into law (and this). Evidence of that is seen in Alito’s concurrence in the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) anti-abortion ruling.[1] He cited 17th-century theologian Matthew Hale, a figure known for misogynistic views, to justify overturning abortion rights.

The Federalist Society, an authoritarian legal network, is the dominant force in judicial nominations. All six Republican-appointed justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas) are Federalist Society affiliates, and the Society has supplied over 85% of Trump-era appellate court nominees (and this). While the Society claims neutrality, its leadership, including co-chair Leonard Leo, openly promotes CN-aligned judges who prioritize “biblical worldview” principles.

Organizations like the American Family Association’s Center for Judicial Renewal (CJR) explicitly vet nominees for adherence to CN tenets. CJR’s “Ten Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge” prioritize candidates who affirm America’s Christian heritage and oppose LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and church-state separation. During Trump’s presidency, this vetting process operated with minimal transparency, as seen in the rushed confirmations of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, where key documents were withheld from public review (and this).

Dark money groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network (spending $27 million on Barrett’s confirmation) and The Wellspring Committee have funded campaigns to promote CN-aligned judges while obscuring donor identities (and this) 9 18. This lack of financial transparency enables CN interests to shape the judiciary without public accountability.

I firmly believe the evidence strongly supports a rational belief that Christian nationalism has exerted significant influence on the Roberts Court. But as usual, opinions differ widely. The big question here is, what is the empirical basis to trust that the six MAGA judges are principled and acting in service to the public interest, not in service to various forms of radical right authoritarianism, including CN politics and policy? 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

For the wonks in the land of TL/DR 

Footnote:

1. Regarding the 2022 Dobbs decision that eliminated a national right to abortion, I asked Pxy about expert legal opinion on that case.

Q: Does most expert legal opinion see the Dobbs USSC decision as anchored in evidence based reason and rationality, with no influence of religious belief or dogma?

A: Most expert legal opinion does not view the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization as primarily anchored in evidence-based reason and rationality, with many scholars identifying potential religious influences in the ruling. This conclusion emerges from analyzing a range of legal critiques focusing on the decision's reasoning, methodology, and underlying assumptions. Legal scholars have raised substantial concerns about the Court's reasoning in Dobbs, with most expert opinions finding significant flaws in its legal methodology and conclusions.

Neil Siegel of Duke University Law School offers a particularly pointed critique, stating flatly that "The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization cannot be taken seriously." He argues that the Court's rationale for rejecting abortion rights protection would logically apply to other substantive due process rights that the Court claims are not under threat. 4 This inconsistency in application suggests reasoning driven by outcome rather than constitutional principles.

Legal experts have specifically criticized how the Court applied stare decisis principles in Dobbs. The Harvard Law Review analysis notes that the Court's emphasis on "disrupted democratic deliberation" fundamentally "altered the scope and substance of the stare decisis calculus." 8 Rather than following established precedent for when to overturn prior decisions, the Court appeared to create new justifications for overruling long-standing precedent.

Joanne Rosen, a health law expert at Johns Hopkins University, describes the ruling as "stunning in its outcome and in the enormity of the implications entailed by the removal of a constitutionally protected right." She further observes that "perhaps for the first time, the Supreme Court departed from precedent not to recognize a right it previously neglected but rather to remove one it previously protected. It deconstitutionalized a long-standing right." 2

The Question of Religious Influence

Some legal scholars directly argue that religious views influenced the Court's decision. An article from the American Constitution Society contends that the Dobbs opinion "was authored by Justice Alito and four other members of the Court who are all conservative Christians. At least four are conservative Catholics." It further claims these justices "placed their personal, conservative Christian beliefs above those of others" and "believes a 'human person' comes into existence immediately upon conception." 3

This view argues that by failing to accommodate diverse religious perspectives on when life begins, the Court effectively privileged one religious viewpoint in its constitutional interpretation.

Other legal experts contest the characterization of Dobbs as religiously motivated. Bruce Ledewitz argues in Canopy Forum that "there is nothing inherently religious about qualms concerning abortion, nor is there anything specifically religious in the Dobbs majority opinion. Abortion is, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, a 'profound moral issue.' But, it is not a purely religious one."** 10

** As discussed above, one would fully expect there to be nothing specifically religious in Dobbs. And, lots of religious people argue that to be moral, a person must be religious.

Ledewitz points out that secular anti-abortion positions exist, citing figures like Nat Hentoff, a self-described "Jewish Atheist" columnist who opposed abortion. From this perspective, characterizing all opposition to abortion as religious "exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America." **

** Arguing that there are non-religious people who oppose abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether CN ideology has influenced some Roberts court decisions. CN theocratic aggression is what exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America, not opposition to abortion.

Conclusion
The preponderance of expert legal opinion views the Dobbs decision as problematically reasoned, with significant concerns about its constitutional methodology, application of precedent, and internal consistency. While disagreement exists about whether explicitly religious beliefs influenced the decision, many legal scholars identify moral positions aligned with particular religious traditions as having shaped the Court's approach.

While the Court’s legitimacy relies on perceptions of impartiality, the interplay between CN ideology and judicial outcomes reveals a systemic alignment with authoritarian and majoritarian religious values. For advocates of pluralism and secular governance, these trends pose existential challenges to democracy itself 16 18.