In This Article

• What makes the Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling uniquely dangerous?
• How does this ruling enable Trump’s authoritarian tech stack?
• Why is the Court now acting as an enabler of executive overreach?
• What lessons can we learn from FDR’s threat to expand the Court?
• Why expanding the Court is no longer radical—but essential to save democracy.

The Supreme Court Just Proved It’s a Menace to the American People

The Supreme Court’s latest move isn’t some arcane battle of legal scholars. It’s a raw power grab. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court allowed DOGE—a newly created agency with close ties to tech oligarchs like Elon Musk—to access the Social Security Administration’s internal systems. That includes personal, financial, and medical data on over 70 million Americans.

At the same time, the Court blocked watchdog groups from obtaining public records about DOGE’s operations. In other words: they gave DOGE the keys to the kingdom while slamming the transparency door shut on the rest of us. The American public won’t even be allowed to know how their data is being used.

Let’s not sugarcoat this. Once this data is copied—and it will be—it can’t be un-copied. It will likely end up in AI training models run by private interests. We’ve already seen reports of AI interests receiving contracts to process this data. What you have here is the makings of an authoritarian surveillance engine with no democratic oversight.

A Pattern of Enabling Authoritarian Power

This is not an isolated ruling. It is part of a long, disturbing pattern. You can trace this Court’s trajectory not just over the past few years—but across decades. What we are watching is not a series of legal coincidences. It is a consistent judicial project to enable corporate, oligarchic, and now authoritarian executive power.

Let’s start with the fingerprints of history. Several members of this Court—including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh—have long been tied to the Republican legal machine that engineered one of the most consequential anti-democratic interventions in modern U.S. history: the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush despite the Florida vote chaos. 

Fast forward. In 2010, this same Court—now hardened by more movement conservatives—delivered Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling that opened the floodgates to unlimited legal corporate bribery in U.S. elections. If you want to understand how oligarchs like Musk, Thiel, and others gained disproportionate influence over both the government and the courts, look no further than Citizens United. The Court blessed the conversion of money into speech and speech into domination.

In recent years, the pattern has accelerated. The Court’s "shadow docket"—emergency decisions issued without full hearings—has become its go-to weapon for enabling authoritarian executive moves. We saw it with Trump’s Muslim ban. We saw it with rulings that greenlit egregious voter suppression laws under the false banner of "state sovereignty." We saw it when the Court refused to block gerrymandered maps that effectively locked in minority rule in key states.

And now we see it again with the DOGE data infrastructure—what analysts rightly call an emerging authoritarian tech stack. This time, the Court has not only allowed the data grab to proceed; it has also blocked public scrutiny of DOGE’s operations. The formula is now familiar: step in on an emergency basis, lift lower court injunctions, greenlight authoritarian or oligarchic initiatives, and limit transparency and accountability.

The justices aren’t merely interpreting the law. They are shaping the battlefield. And the side they consistently favor is not the American people. It is the alliance of reactionary political forces and corporate power that seeks to hollow out what remains of American democracy.

The Straw That Broke the Camel’s Back

If you think this is just about government efficiency, think again. The Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling is not some benign nod to modernizing data systems. It is the straw that broke the camel’s back in a long, deliberate effort to construct what analysts call an Authoritarian Tech Stack—a layered system of control built on data, AI, and surveillance, designed to entrench power and dismantle democratic resistance.

Let’s pause and explain the term. An Authoritarian Tech Stack is not a conspiracy theory or a sci-fi fantasy. It is a real-world architecture we’ve seen deployed in countries from China to Hungary to Russia—and now being rapidly assembled here in the United States under the cover of "government modernization." A tech stack refers to the layered software and data systems that power modern platforms. An Authoritarian Tech Stack simply means those layers are being used not to serve citizens, but to control them.

Here’s the playbook—and it is already well underway:

First, seize control of population data. That is precisely what DOGE’s Social Security data grab enables. Now that the Court has greenlit this move, there is no reason to think IRS and Medicare data are off the table. In fact, Project 2025 explicitly calls for integrated government data to "support AI-driven governance."

Second, feed this data into AI models controlled not by neutral public institutions, but by private firms loyal to the regime’s political project. Musk’s xAI is already positioning itself to ingest this data. Thiel’s Palantir has a long history of government surveillance contracts and is deeply embedded in the Trump orbit. These firms are not chasing efficiency—they are building tools for behavioral modeling, microtargeting, and surveillance. As Musk himself recently said, "Government data is the biggest underused resource for building better AI models."

Third, deploy these AI-driven capabilities through state and private channels. This is where it gets truly dangerous:

Targeted propaganda can be delivered via Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), right-wing media networks, and closed messaging platforms. Loyalty scoring—assigning citizens "trustworthiness" scores based on their behavior and affiliations—is already practiced in China and is openly admired by certain Project 2025 architects. Predictive policing, using AI to flag "potential threats" based on patterns in personal data, is a known goal of Palantir systems and is being quietly piloted in several U.S. jurisdictions.

Once these tools are embedded, they create a self-reinforcing cycle of authoritarian power. Public opinion is manipulated. Dissent is identified and suppressed. Independent civil society is gradually strangled. Elections themselves become mere theater when the population’s digital nervous system is controlled from the top.

This is not hypothetical. It is not distant. It is happening in real time. And the Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling just supercharged this stack. By handing DOGE access to the SSA’s data—and simultaneously shielding its operations from FOIA oversight—the Court has removed the last legal obstacle to building the base layer of this architecture.

That is not a neutral act. It is not some conservative interpretation of dusty constitutional clauses. It is collaboration with an emerging authoritarian project—one that combines state power with private tech oligarch ambitions to create a system of population control unprecedented in American history.

This is why the ruling is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Until now, we could argue that the Court’s pattern of decisions—though alarming—might still be within the bounds of traditional conservative jurisprudence. No longer. With this ruling, the Court has crossed into active facilitation of an authoritarian tech apparatus. It has blessed the construction of tools designed not to empower citizens, but to manage them. That is a line that no free society can afford to tolerate.

If we do not act now—if we allow this stack to solidify—no amount of future hand-wringing will matter. The machinery of control will be built. The digital cage will be locked. And the Court will have written the ruling that closed the door on American freedom.

Current Justice's Role in the 2000 Florida Election Theft

This is not the first time these justices have performed an anti-democracy dance. The 2000 U.S. presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was one of the most contentious in American history, with the outcome hinging on the results from Florida. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore effectively resolved the dispute in favor of Bush, but the involvement of certain justices and the circumstances surrounding the election have been subjects of ongoing debate.

Justice Clarence Thomas was part of the 5–4 majority in the Bush v. Gore decision, which halted the Florida recount, effectively awarding the presidency to George W. Bush. His vote was pivotal in the Court's intervention in the electoral process.

Although not yet a Supreme Court justice in 2000, John Roberts played a role in the Florida election dispute as a private attorney. He provided legal assistance to the Bush campaign during the recount efforts, contributing to the legal strategies that culminated in the Supreme Court case.

Similarly, Brett Kavanaugh, who was not on the Court at the time, was part of the legal team supporting George W. Bush during the Florida recount. His involvement included working on legal briefs and strategies aimed at stopping the recount process.

Amy Coney Barrett, then a young associate at a law firm, assisted the Bush legal team in Florida during the 2000 election dispute. Her work involved research and briefing support related to absentee ballot issues, contributing to the broader legal efforts that influenced the election's outcome.

The state contracted with a private company to identify ineligible voters, using a list of felons from Texas that was known to be riddled with errors. The result was a purge that erroneously disenfranchised thousands of eligible voters, disproportionately African American.

A significant controversy in the 2000 Florida election involved the purging of voter rolls. The state contracted with a private company to identify ineligible voters, resulting in a list that erroneously included thousands of eligible voters, many of whom were African American. This flawed process led to widespread disenfranchisement and raised serious concerns about the integrity of the election.

These factors combined—the Supreme Court's decisive intervention and the problematic voter roll purges—have led many to view the 2000 election outcome as deeply flawed, with long-lasting implications for American democracy.

Cambridge Analytica? Child’s Play Compared to What’s Coming

Some might argue: haven’t we seen this movie before? After all, didn’t Cambridge Analytica already show us how data could be weaponized to manipulate public opinion? Yes—and that’s exactly the point. But what is being constructed now makes Cambridge Analytica look like child’s play.

Let’s remind ourselves what happened. In 2016, Cambridge Analytica illegally harvested data on tens of millions of Facebook users. It used that data to build detailed psychological profiles—identifying which voters could be emotionally manipulated with tailored messages. The result? Hyper-targeted propaganda and disinformation campaigns that likely helped swing key states in the U.S. presidential election and distorted political discourse in the U.K.’s Brexit referendum.

And that was with data scraped from a single social media platform—not from the entire federal records of a nation.

Now imagine the same kind of behavioral targeting—but powered by the full data archives of the U.S. government. Imagine AI systems trained on not just your public posts, but your Social Security history, your income records, your medical data, your family connections, your movements, your voting record, your entire digital footprint. That is what DOGE’s data grab, blessed by the Supreme Court, makes possible.

And this time, it won’t just be shady consultants scraping Facebook. It will be both private and state-backed AI models, trained on the most sensitive government data, deployed by tech oligarchs with deep political alliances and no public accountability.

Cambridge Analytica was a warning shot—a crude, early prototype of the authoritarian tech stack now being built. We ignored that warning at our peril. Today’s version is industrial-scale, turbocharged by AI, and given legal cover by a Supreme Court majority that seems disturbingly comfortable with autocratic power.

If Cambridge Analytica could tilt an election with stolen Facebook likes, imagine what a system trained on your entire life can do. That’s not dystopian speculation—it is the logical endgame of the path we are now on.

Historical Precedent: FDR’s Court Expansion Threat

If this sounds unprecedented in American history, it isn’t the first time an authoritarian-leaning Supreme Court has tried to sabotage democracy. Just ask Franklin Roosevelt.

We’ve faced this kind of judicial menace before. In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was being systematically sabotaged by a reactionary Supreme Court determined to preserve the old order. Sound familiar?

FDR’s response wasn’t subtle. He proposed adding justices to dilute the Court’s reactionary bloc. His court-packing plan triggered fierce debate, but it worked. Under pressure, the Court shifted, and key New Deal reforms survived.

Today’s situation is even more dangerous. The Court isn’t just blocking reforms—it’s actively facilitating an authoritarian project. The stakes are higher, the tech more invasive, and the time window shorter. We can’t afford to wait for this Court to have a change of heart. We need structural change—now.

Why Court Expansion Is Now a Democratic Imperative

Expanding the Court is not about revenge. It’s not about restoring ideological balance for its own sake. It is a defensive measure to preserve democracy itself. If this Court remains unchecked, it will continue to bless every tool of authoritarian consolidation: voter suppression, surveillance, data capture, unaccountable executive power.

Congress has the constitutional authority to set the size of the Supreme Court. It has changed multiple times in U.S. history. There is nothing sacrosanct about nine justices. What is sacrosanct is the principle of democratic self-governance—and that principle is now under direct threat.

The argument that Court expansion would “politicize” the Court is laughable. This Court is already politicized to its core. The question is whether we will allow that politicization to destroy the republic, or whether we will act to restore democratic balance before it’s too late.

Act Before It’s Too Late

The DOGE ruling is final proof. This Supreme Court is not going to save us. It is accelerating the authoritarian project, not restraining it. If we do not act—if we continue to indulge fantasies of judicial neutrality or wait for "the next election to fix it"—we will soon face a government armed with total data surveillance, AI-driven control systems, and a Supreme Court that declares it all constitutional.

Expanding the Court is not radical. Allowing this Court to continue unchecked is. But let’s be clear: expanding the Court alone will not be enough. Nor will simply hoping Congress passes some reform package. Nor will electing the next president—because even a good president cannot erase the systemic power now being embedded beneath our democracy.

The brutal truth is this: no institution is going to save us. The courts won’t. Congress won’t. The presidency won’t. Only an active, awakened public can save American democracy now. That means organizing, demanding structural reform, flooding the streets if necessary, and refusing to be lulled into complacency by the same old partisan games.

This moment is not business as usual. It is a tipping point. The authoritarian tech stack is being built while most of the country watches the circus. The Supreme Court just gave it a green light. If we the people do not rise to meet this challenge, no one else will.

The time for hesitation is over. The time to defend democracy is now. And the time to remember that only the people can do it—that time is long overdue. History is watching. The question is whether we will show up.

About the Author

Robert Jennings is the co-publisher of InnerSelf.com, a platform dedicated to empowering individuals and fostering a more connected, equitable world. A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army, Robert draws on his diverse life experiences, from working in real estate and construction to building InnerSelf with his wife, Marie T. Russell, to bring a practical, grounded perspective to life’s challenges. Founded in 1996, InnerSelf.com shares insights to help people make informed, meaningful choices for themselves and the planet. More than 30 years later, InnerSelf continues to inspire clarity and empowerment.

 Creative Commons 4.0

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License. Attribute the author Robert Jennings, InnerSelf.com. Link back to the article This article originally appeared on InnerSelf.com

Article Recap

The Supreme Court menace is no longer theoretical—its DOGE ruling proves the Court is enabling authoritarian overreach. Expanding the Court is now essential to defend democracy and dilute the influence of its radical majority before American freedoms are further eroded.

References & Notes

Supreme Court Grants DOGE Access to Social Security Data
NPR, "Supreme Court DOGE Ruling Grants Access to Social Security Data," June 6, 2025.

Elon Musk's DOGE Expands Use of Grok AI in U.S. Government
Reuters, "Musk's DOGE expanding his Grok AI in US government, raising conflict concerns," May 23, 2025.

Supreme Court Blocks Lower Court Order Requiring DOGE to Release Public Records
CBS News, "Supreme Court Halts Lower Court Order Requiring DOGE to Release Public Records," June 6, 2025.

Project 2025's Vision for AI-Driven Governance
Brookings Institution, "What Project 2025 Says About AI and Government Data," May 2025.

Cambridge Analytica and Facebook Data Scandal
The Guardian, "Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica," March 17, 2018.

The Rise of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket
SCOTUSblog, "Lawmakers consider nudging Supreme Court toward more transparency on the shadow docket," February 2021.

Voting Laws Roundup: October 2021
Brennan Center for Justice, "Voting Laws Roundup: October 2021," October 4, 2021.

FDR Announces Court-Packing Plan
History.com, "FDR announces 'court-packing' plan," February 5, 1937.

Palantir's Predictive Policing in New Orleans
The Verge, "Palantir has secretly been using New Orleans to test its predictive policing technology," February 27, 2018.

Palantir's Predictive Policing Technology: A Case of Algorithmic Bias and Lack of Transparency
ResearchGate, "Palantir's Predictive Policing Technology: A Case of Algorithmic Bias and Lack of Transparency," October 27, 2024.

LAPD Employs Palantir for Predictive Policing
American Jewish Society, "Predictive Policing in LA: LAPD Employs Palantir for Surveillance," accessed June 2025.

Elon Musk's Vision for AI in Government Functions
HCAMag, "Musk says AI should replace inefficient US government functions," May 2025.

#SupremeCourtMenace #ExpandTheCourt #DefendDemocracy #CourtExpansion #DOGERuling #AuthoritarianTechStack