Editor’s note: I generally would have published this piece last week, but I was enjoying a bit of self-imposed paternity leave after the birth of my daughter. Please note that anyone who babysits will get a free premium subscription.

This past Supreme Court term subjected us to maybe the most unsettling “win” in a long while: in Trump v. Barbara, the Court upheld constitutional birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 margin. That’s pretty slim for a right that was essentially uncontested until Donald Trump brought it into question.

Did we stave off disaster, or is the case a harbinger of horrors to come? Senior Democrats and mainstream media types seem to think it’s the former. Chuck Schumer framed it as an unequivocal victory, writing that the Court had stood up to Trump’s bullying. Hakeem Jeffries was similarly celebratory. The New York Times patted the Court on the back for “remembering its principles.”

The mood among some on the right was also eerily optimistic. J.D. Vance went on television to point out that they were only one vote away from victory. Ilan Wurman, who spearheaded the charge to manufacture an anti-birthright understanding of the 14th Amendment last year, correctly pointed out that the right had turned a completely uncontested issue into a hot-button controversy.

We’re seeing the Court radicalize even beyond where it was a few years ago. Brett Kavanaugh, once considered moderate relative to his conservative peers, is increasingly joining the Court’s right-wing fringe. You might think that in an era where the Court’s approval ratings are at historical lows and there are murmurs of Court reform among even moderate Democrats, the Court would exercise some caution, if only as a matter of self-preservation.

The problem with that analysis is that it assumes that Supreme Court Justices are living in the same world as you and me. But what’s actually happening is that the Justices are responding rationally to the incentives of their media bubble. The conservatives on the Court are likely seeing media coverage from two sources. The first is the mainstream press, which is stuck in an endless cycle wherein it watches the Court side with right-wing interests nine times out of ten and then applauds their impartiality when the tenth case arrives. 

The second source is the conservative press. This might be difficult to believe for anyone not in tune with the conservative bubble, but right-wing media has been relentlessly critical of the Court in recent years. The prevailing belief on the right is that this Court has been a disappointment due to its unwillingness to take the most aggressive right-wing position in every case. And that’s putting it lightly. Many on the right are calling Amy Coney Barrett a traitor for her very occasional moderation. The Federalist ran a piece suggesting that the Court upholding birthright citizenship was a crisis so severe that it requires rethinking how law schools are accredited (please don’t click on the Federalist link - I’m including it out of journalistic obligation but it is truly a malware-riddled hellhole).