In recent years, dark money has quietly but powerfully influenced the U.S. Supreme Court, shifting it in a conservative direction. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been a vocal critic of this, exposing how anonymous donors, operating through groups like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, are undermining the judiciary’s independence.

Leonard Leo and The Federalist Society

Central to this influence is Leonard Leo, a leader within the Federalist Society, who has been integral to reshaping the Court. Leo’s network—funded by secretive, untraceable donors—has played a major role in selecting justices who are sympathetic to corporate and conservative interests. These efforts helped place Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on the bench, ensuring decisions align with a right-leaning, originalist interpretation of the law.

The vast amount of money supporting Leo’s efforts is staggering. Whitehouse has highlighted how this web of financial influence bypasses transparency laws, making it impossible to know who is truly behind the push to stack the judiciary. The lack of accountability is dangerous for the rule of law and democracy itself.

80 Narrow 5-4 Decisions

One of Whitehouse’s key findings is that this dark money influence has led to over 80 5-4 decisions during Chief Justice Roberts’ tenure. These rulings often align with corporate, political, and religious interests, revealing the power of the donors behind them. Cases like Citizens United v. FEC and Shelby County v. Holder opened the floodgates for corporate money in politics and weakened protections for minority voting rights, respectively.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts in elections, effectively turning elections into a contest of who can raise the most money. Similarly, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down key protections from the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for states to pass restrictive voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minority voters. These decisions weren’t just ideologically conservative—they directly benefitted the anonymous backers of Leo’s network, many of whom have financial interests in deregulating campaign finance or weakening voter protections.

Roe v. Wade and the Overturning of Abortion Rights

The influence of dark money was never more evident than in the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Conservative justices, many of whom owe their appointments to Leo’s network, were essential in this 6-3 ruling, which removed federal protections for abortion. The long-term campaign to overturn Roe was heavily funded by anti-abortion groups and conservative legal activists, who used the Federalist Society’s influence to place anti-abortion justices on the Court.

Chevron Doctrine and Regulatory Rollbacks

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2023), the Court’s 6-3 ruling overruled the 1984 Chevron decision, which had allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws and expand their regulatory powers. This marks a victory for corporate interests and industries that oppose government regulation. By curbing agency authority, the ruling aligns with the long-standing goals of dark money donors, who seek to weaken labor laws, environmental protections, and financial regulations.

Voting Rights and Shelby County v. Holder

Since the Shelby County decision, which gutted the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, dark money has continued to shape decisions that undermine voting protections. Whitehouse has repeatedly pointed out that wealthy interests backing voter suppression laws use the courts to dismantle federal oversight, ensuring less regulation and more power to state legislatures that enact restrictive voting laws.

Senator Whitehouse’s Fight for Reform

Senator Whitehouse has been leading efforts to expose and reform this system of influence. His amicus briefs and Senate speeches (“The Scheme”) argue for greater transparency in campaign finance and judicial ethics reform. He advocates for disclosing the identities of donors behind the dark money groups and creating stricter rules that prevent justices from hearing cases that involve their financial backers.

Conclusion: A Captured Court?

The dark money system unearthed by Senator Whitehouse represents a fundamental threat to judicial independence. Decisions in key areas—such as abortion, regulatory power, and voting rights—are increasingly influenced by anonymous, wealthy donors whose agendas often conflict with public interest. The judiciary, meant to act above political pressure, has been quietly captured by an orchestrated, well-funded effort to reshape American law from the bench.

As Whitehouse argues, exposing and addressing this influence is critical to preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court and protecting democracy.