The Supreme Court and Women’s Rights: Examining the Legacy of Trump’s Judicial Appointments

During 2016 presidential campaign, as well as in the years of his presidency, Donald Trump has repeatedly used populist rhetoric while referring to the role of judiciary and judges. Such an approach became significant, as Trump’s first tenure in the White House marked a substantial shift in the ideological balance of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), with three appointments reasserting a conservative majority. These appointments constituted a critical element of broader transformations affecting U.S. constitutionalism and the balance of powers during the so-called Trump Era (2015–2025). This paper critically examines the impact of this transformation on one of most critical issues raised in public debate – women’s rights – focusing on landmark decisions and broader jurisprudential trends that have emerged since Trump’s SCOTUS appointments. Women’s rights are treated here not only as a distinct policy area, but as a key indicator of the condition of the rule of law and constitutional rights protection in the United States. Employing a qualitative content analysis of judicial opinions and dissents, the study identifies patterns in the Court’s reasoning and doctrinal shifts in areas such as reproductive autonomy or workplace discrimination. A comparative approach is used to evaluate how the Court’s recent rulings diverge from or align with prior precedents, revealing longer-term implications for judicial review and the Supreme Court’s role as a counter-majoritarian institution. The theoretical framework for the analysis draws primarily from the concept of politicization of justice, institutionalism theory, and feminist legal theory. By integrating these theoretical perspectives, this study examines broader implications of the Court’s shifting composition and decision-making patterns. The politicization of justice highlights the strategic use of judicial appointments to advance political objectives. Institutionalism offers insight into how the Court’s decisions influence the functioning of the state and society. Feminist legal theory critically assesses the gendered consequences of the Court’s rulings, revealing their potential to perpetuate or remove systemic inequalities. The analysis conceptualizes the Trump Era as a prolonged critical turning point in U.S. constitutional development, with implications not only for women’s rights, but also for the resilience of constitutional democracy in a context of political polarization and populist pressures. In this way, the paper contributes to broader debates on democratic backsliding and constitutional governance in contemporary democratic systems.