Staff Writer- August von Seth
On April 7th, the biannual Ronald S. and Kathryn K. Christenson Lectureship in Politics and Law is being held in the Wallenberg Auditorium. Taking place from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., this year’s guest speaker is Jay Willis, a journalist who covers the United States Supreme Court and the legal system. He is the editor‑in‑chief of Balls & Strikes, a platform reporting on developments in the judicial branch of government.
The event, which honors the late Gustavus political science professor Dr. Ron Christenson, was originally established in 2015 by his wife, Kathryn, to spread interest in topics related to his field of research.
“Ron’s professional passion was political trials, which exist at the intersection of politics and law. So the lecture series honors Ron’s central teaching and scholarly interests,” Political Science Professor Christopher Gilbert wrote in a statement.
This year’s speaker dispels the notion that S.C.O.T.U.S. “does law, not politics” —the focal point of Willis’ upcoming talk, ‘Politicians in Black Pajamas: Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court, Today and Tomorrow.’
“The crux of what I want to talk about, and what I discuss a lot in my professional life, is the contrast between the way lawyers, judges, law professors, and even the justices themselves talk about the Supreme Court, and the way the Supreme Court actually works in the real world,” Willis said.
According to Willis, the work that happens at the highest court in the federal judiciary is fundamentally the same as the political work taking place in Congress. He noted that this view is considered “heretical” within the legal profession.
“My work centers on the idea that there is no daylight between the two—that Supreme Court decisions are functionally policy decisions, even though they take place through the framework and language of the law,” Willis said.
As of September 2025, the Supreme Court had a net approval rating of negative 10%, per data compiled by Gallup, an analytics and advisory company specializing in public opinion polling. In a guest essay for the New York Times, Willis reported on a crisis of legitimacy for the institution already in effect when Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. In his view, rehabilitating its image is a challenge.
“There is no single fix. Term limits? Yes. Adding justices? Yes. Acknowledging the Court’s partisan nature does not undermine its legitimacy. To the extent its legitimacy is damaged, that is the result of the Court’s own decisions. It is not the job of politicians to uphold the legitimacy of an institution that has forfeited it,” Willis said.
During the 2016 election, 56% of voters who prioritized S.C.O.T.U.S. nominations cast their ballots for Trump. To Willis, the concurrent death of former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia played a role in the Republican party’s electoral strategy.
“The 2016 election was unique. Scalia’s death created a vacancy that allowed Trump to pitch himself to the conservative legal establishment. Republicans emphasized the importance of the Court to their base; Democrats historically have not. In upcoming elections, Democrats have an opportunity to correct that,” Willis said.
One of Willis’ key assertions is that Supreme Court rulings routinely favor “long-term Republican interests,” citing, among other things, Justice Samuel Alito’s 1985 job application to former President Ronald Reagan’s Department of Justice. In it, he wrote that he held the firm belief that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
“The conservative legal movement had spent 50 years working to undermine Roe and to build a conservative supermajority with the votes to overturn it. Long before he became a justice, Samuel Alito wrote in a Justice Department job application that he was proud of his work on cases undermining abortion rights…The idea that this played no role in his vote to overturn Roe is implausible,” Willis said.
Another point of concern for the upcoming speaker is the 2013 legal case Shelby County v. Holder, wherein a 5-4 majority nullified a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandating federal preclearance for state voting laws, citing the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among states.
“By the time the Court invalidated Section 5, it had been around for 50 years—the same age as Roe when it was overturned. Justices can talk in terms of legal theory, but what changed was the composition of the Court…The same is true of Roe: the conservative legal movement tried to overturn it for decades, but only succeeded once there were six solid conservatives on the Court,” Willis said.
Willis’ legal news and commentary platform Balls & Strikes receives funding from a non-profit called Demand Justice. According to its mission statement, the organization “mobilizes aggressive and steadfast opposition to Donald Trump’s corruption of the federal courts.” It claims that “conservatives invested billions to capture the judiciary—and succeeded,” lamenting their packing the institution with “anti-populist” justices.
While the guest speaker shares its goal of expanding the number of justices in the Supreme Court, commonly referred to as ‘packing the court,’ he maintained that his outlet enjoys editorial independence.
“Nonprofit sponsorship allows us to report on aspects of the legal system that establishment outlets have long neglected and to platform writers with strong ideas about the Court,” Willis said.
To students, the question of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is one of complexity. First-year student Erick Das, who majors in Philosophy and Biochemistry, identified it as “loaded.” He views the institution as partisan.
“Partisan refers to a two‑party system, and the country has been going through what the Democratic and Republican parties represent…I wouldn’t say the Court is fifty‑fifty. From what I know, it doesn’t seem evenly split,” Das said. “I tend to be careful about my understanding because I don’t know a lot, and it’s sometimes difficult to discern what counts as conservative or progressive.”
First-year student Haley Youngquist lacks trust in S.C.O.T.U.S. because she is “not a Republican.” She is in favor of packing the court.
“I think it’s important to have a variety of different views, not just a majority of one. It’s important to have representation from multiple perspectives,” Youngquist said.
“The Political Science Department is very grateful for Kathryn Christenson’s generosity in establishing this event. She will be in the front row on April 7th, listening intently and taking notes—as she has been for every Christenson lecture,” Gilbert wrote.
All those who find the matter engaging are encouraged to join her and everyone else in deliberation about this important subject.