Last weeks Supreme Court decision greenlighting a ban on gender-affirming healthcare for youth was not surprising. After all, the right wing of the Court pretty much signaled during oral arguments that they were fine with legislators who have no background in medicine making decisions about regulating care, since the justices dont have medical backgrounds, either.But the decision drives home a much bigger point. The six right-wing justices on the Court are the supreme judicial enablers of Project 2025.The majority has long abandoned any fealty to law, preferring instead to pledge their loyalty to ideology. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Donald Trump immunity to do whatever he wants without fear of repercussion, but last year, the majority had no problem granting him that gift. Justice Sonia Sotomayor rightly said that the ruling made Trump a king above the law.The idea of an all-powerful president is a critical component of the Project 2025 strategy. Its hard to imagine that the Court would have ruled the same way if Joe Biden were the original plaintiff instead of Trump. Indeed, the Court went out of its way to curtail Bidens power as much as possible when he was president. It blocked his student loan forgiveness program. It struck down a long-standing ruling that let regulatory authorities decide rules, a key part of Bidens green energy strategy. Instead, the justices assigned that role to courts, knowing that they would be the final arbiter. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today Its hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda, John Yoo, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, told Reuters. (Yoo is best known as the author of a memo during George W. Bushs presidency justifying the use of waterboarding and other tortures).Perhaps the biggest loss was the Dobbs decision, which overturned the right to an abortion. This ruling was radical in every sense, overturning decades of precedent as if it were just a nuisance. Like Project 2025, the ruling didnt consider the real-world implications in the least, and it certainly did not consider the opinion of the majority of Americans. The Court majority just wanted to achieve an ideological goal that has long been a wish of the far right. So they did.Chief Justice John Roberts likes to engage in a lot of handwringing about the Courts image. Yet, his fellow conservatives flout the rules, and he does nothing about it. It never seems to occur to him that its the Courts own actions that undermine its legitimacy. After all, one justice is benefiting from the largesse of a billionaire while his wife cheered on an insurrection. Another has flags flying from his property that indicate sypmathy for the far right. The Supreme Court is a corrupt institution thanks to the majority, which will tie itself in knots to justify whatever the GOP wants. The justices were chosen for their ideology by the Federalist Society, which wanted candidates who adhered to specific outcomes. Its no coincidence that the original director of Project 2025, Paul Dans, has been a member of the Federalist Society since law school (hes in his mid-50s). Dans was a key architect of Project 2025 until he was ousted for becoming too politically toxic during the presidential campaign.As a reminder, Project 2025 wants to roll back marriage equality to the point of eliminating it altogether. It wants to classify advocating for trans rights as disseminating pornography. It is a Christian nationalists dream book.Theres no reason to think that the majority on the Supreme Court would stand in the way of Trump fulfilling those dreams. Sure, there will be some lines it wont cross in the most egregious cases. But the majority has shown it cares nothing for precedent and next to nothing for civil rights. It was just five years ago that the Court issued a landmark decision saying that an employer who fires an employee merely for being transgender violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Even though the same issue was at stake in the Tennessee transgender healthcare case, the majority concluded that the case really wasnt about that at all. That majority included Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the Title VII decision five years ago. After the blowback he got from that ruling, he learned his lesson. Ideology must always come before the law.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.