Judge Bove, the Rule of Law, and the Reactionary Turn of the Courts

Judge Richard Bove has been publicly critical of judicial institutions, warning that American courts have strayed from their intended function of upholding justice and truth. In particular, Bove has voiced concern about how whistleblowers are treated—targeted for retaliation, marginalized by institutions, and left without recourse in a system designed to shield the powerful. But Bove’s own record and affiliations cast doubt on the consistency of his legal philosophy. As a Trump-aligned appointee, Bove is more likely to deepen the court’s ideological entrenchment than to reverse it. His selective critiques of the judiciary seem less about strengthening the rule of law than about steering it toward reactionary ends.

Bove has written extensively about whistleblower suppression, documenting how statutes like the Whistleblower Protection Act and False Claims Act are gutted by procedural roadblocks and judicial indifference. He has pointed to a pattern in which federal courts quietly dismiss cases before any public accountability can emerge. These arguments have real merit. In education, defense, public health, and finance, those who speak out against corruption are often destroyed professionally—and the courts typically do little to protect them.

Yet Bove’s credibility as a reformer is undermined by his political proximity to Trumpism, a movement that has actively eroded public trust in legal and democratic institutions while consolidating judicial power through appointments, loyalty tests, and legal reinterpretations designed to roll back rights. While Bove criticizes certain elements of the judiciary, he appears to support—and potentially enable—the broader project of reactionary capture.

His recent elevation comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has already lurched to the right, and trust in the institution is near historic lows. The Roberts Court has gutted voting rights, weakened environmental protections, and removed federal abortion protections. These are not isolated rulings; they reflect a larger pattern of judicial rollback. Adding judges like Bove to the lower federal courts—and possibly grooming them for higher positions—is a strategy to entrench that agenda for decades.

The idea that the Supreme Court is now “broken” assumes it was once apolitical. But history suggests otherwise. From Dred Scott and Plessy to Lochner and Buck v. Bell, the Court has long used its authority to uphold racial hierarchies, corporate dominance, and the suppression of dissent. In this sense, Bove does not represent a break with tradition but rather a continuation of it—albeit with a different rhetorical emphasis.

In his writings, Bove laments the loss of public trust in courts. But trust is earned through fair and consistent application of the law, not through ideological fidelity or performative dissent. His own views suggest a selective application of justice: one that claims to protect whistleblowers while aligning with a political movement that regularly vilifies them; one that criticizes judicial corruption while serving those who have actively undermined judicial independence.

The whistleblowers Bove claims to defend are often the same people targeted by the very forces that empowered his rise. Those who exposed abuses at ICE detention centers, in the Trump Organization’s finances, in the handling of COVID-19 data, or in for-profit education scams tied to political donors—many found no champion in the courts. And they are unlikely to find one in Bove.

Bove’s appointment must be understood not just in terms of individual qualifications, but in terms of broader institutional transformation. Courts are being packed not just with conservatives, but with ideologues who share a narrow vision of rights—especially corporate and religious ones—while constraining public protections, reproductive freedoms, and worker rights.

In the long term, this strategy may succeed in shifting the legal consensus even further. The Court, already unmoored from popular legitimacy, could continue to reverse decades of legal precedent. While Bove raises important points about how the system fails truth-tellers, his participation in a wider political project of rollback should not be ignored. His version of the rule of law is unlikely to serve the public—it is more likely to reinforce a system that protects power from accountability.

Sources
Richard Bove, “The System Punishes Whistleblowers While Enabling Crime,” Financial Regulation Newsletter, 2023
Richard Bove, “Why the Courts Are Losing Public Trust,” Independent Legal Review, 2024
National Whistleblower Center, “Judicial Retaliation Against Whistleblowers,” 2023
The Brookings Institution, “The Supreme Court and Public Legitimacy,” 2023
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)