Home > Opinion > Columns

Judicial independence undermined in Korea’s FDR-style court fight

Published: 08 May. 2025, 00:02

Chung Hyo-shik

The author is the social news editor of the JoongAng Ilbo.

In a rare and dramatic confrontation between Korea’s legislature and judiciary, the ruling Democratic Party succeeded in pressuring the Seoul High Court to postpone a politically sensitive trial, drawing comparisons to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s infamous court-packing attempt nearly a century ago.

Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, center, visits a traditional market in Jeungpyeong County, about 100 kilometers southeast of Seoul, on May 6. [YONHAP]

On May 7, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 7, which is overseeing the remanded trial of opposition presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, announced it would delay the first hearing — initially scheduled for May 15 — until June 18, after the June 3 presidential election. The court cited a desire to “ensure equal opportunities for all presidential candidates to campaign.”

The move came after a week of intense pressure from the Democratic Party, including threats of impeachment against Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and Judge Lee Jae-kwon, who is presiding over the retrial. The ruling party also pushed for a parliamentary hearing and a sweeping legislative investigation into the Supreme Court, as well as legislation to expand the number of justices on the bench.

This is the first time since Korea’s democratization in 1987 that the National Assembly has successfully forced a change in the judicial schedule through overt political pressure. The implications are far-reaching, raising alarms over the erosion of the separation of powers.

In addition to pushing for a postponement of the trial, the Democratic Party’s lawmakers on the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee passed a bill on May 7 to amend the Criminal Procedure Act. The amendment would halt all criminal trials involving an elected president while in office. If enacted, it would effectively shield Lee Jae-myung from ongoing trials should he win the presidency.

President Franklin Roosevelt signs the Social Security Bill in Washington on August 14, 1935. [AP/YONHAP]

The episode bears striking resemblance to Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing plan. Frustrated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeated invalidation of key New Deal legislation — including the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act — FDR proposed a bill allowing him to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70. This would have enabled him to add six new justices, flipping the conservative-leaning 5-4 court to a liberal majority.

FDR justified the plan by framing it as a means to modernize the judiciary and reduce the workload of aging justices. But critics saw it as a blatant attempt to undermine judicial independence. Facing bipartisan backlash, including from within his own Democratic Party, Roosevelt ultimately failed to push the plan through. Ironically, the Supreme Court soon began upholding New Deal legislation, rendering the court-packing bill unnecessary.

In Korea, the court-expansion proposal came from Democratic Party lawmaker Rep. Kim Yong-min, who introduced a bill the day after the Supreme Court returned Lee’s case to the High Court. The bill would increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 30. While Kim cited heavy caseloads as a justification, he also noted the need for “greater social diversity” in the judiciary — a politically loaded phrase. The intent was further laid bare when liberal commentator Kim Eo-jun stated on his YouTube channel that the current majority of justices who sided against Lee could be overwhelmed simply by “appointing 33 more judges who think differently.”

Adding another layer of irony, Lee Jae-myung has long cited Roosevelt as his political role model. In a 2016 social media post, Lee wrote that he once admired Abraham Lincoln but had come to prefer Roosevelt, who, he argued, rescued America from the Great Depression through welfare policies and laid the groundwork for postwar prosperity. “If I had to be compared to a historical figure,” Lee wrote, “I would like to be remembered as Korea’s Roosevelt.”

That comparison now invites scrutiny. While Roosevelt’s legacy includes landmark achievements in economic recovery and wartime leadership, his court-packing episode is widely regarded as an overreach — a blemish on his otherwise transformative presidency. Lee’s embrace of Roosevelt’s most controversial tactic for personal legal gain could have lasting consequences.

Legal experts and judges are already bracing for what may come next. If Lee wins the presidency, he would control the executive and legislative branches and, within two years, could appoint a successor to Chief Justice Cho, who is set to retire at age 70. Such a scenario would allow Lee to influence all three branches of government, raising fears of a judicial system subordinated to political power.

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and Supreme Court justices take their seats in the main courtroom of the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on May 1 for a full-bench ruling in the election law violation case of Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

The damage to the judiciary’s independence is already apparent. Even if the courts recover their autonomy in the short term, the precedent set by this episode — that a political party can exert pressure through impeachment threats, legislative overreach, and public scrutiny to sway judicial decisions — could weaken Korea’s constitutional order for years to come.

Ultimately, the deeper cost is to the principle of checks and balances, a cornerstone of democratic governance. When the courts become a battleground for political survival, the system no longer serves justice — it serves power.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.