Supreme Court justices face rising political pressure after controversial ruling

Home > Opinion > Columns

Supreme Court justices face rising political pressure after controversial ruling

Published: 09 May. 2025, 00:03

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kang Ju-an

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Until recently, public scrutiny was focused on the Constitutional Court as it handled the impeachment trial of former President Yoon Suk Yeol. But in the span of just a month, attention has shifted sharply to the Supreme Court, now facing its own political storm. The catalyst was its ruling in the appeal trial of Democratic Party (DP) presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, in which the court partially overturned his acquittal and sent the case back for retrial, signaling that his remarks in a past election campaign could constitute a violation of the Public Official Election Act.

The backlash was swift. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de now faces calls for investigation by a special prosecutor and even impeachment. Other justices could soon find themselves summoned before the National Assembly. Once again, Korea’s top judges are being drawn into political crossfire.

Chief Justice Jo Hee-de prepares to deliver the Supreme Court’s ruling on Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung’s appeal in a public election law violation case at the Supreme Court courtroom in southern Seoul on May 1. [NEWS1]

Critics, particularly within the DP, have argued that the court moved too quickly in reaching its decision. Two justices who dissented — Lee Hong-gu and Oh Kyung-mi — raised concerns about the pace, likening the process to Aesop’s fable of the sun and the wind. They argued that Supreme Court en banc decisions require time for careful deliberation and persuasion, asking whether this case had truly benefited from the “warmth and time” needed for thoughtful consensus.

The majority, however, pushed back. Justice Seo Kyung-hwan and four others asserted that the case’s main legal questions were not especially complex. “The number of days on a calendar does not determine the quality of deliberation,” they wrote, defending their conclusion as the result of focused, efficient review.

At the center of the case was Lee’s comment during a televised debate regarding allegations that he had played golf with Kim Moon-ki, a key figure in the Daejang-dong development scandal, during an official trip to Australia. Lee had said:

“The People Power Party released a photo as if I had played golf, but after checking, I found they cropped a group photo of our delegation to make it look that way. It was fabricated.”

Ten of the twelve justices interpreted the comment as meaning that Lee was falsely claiming he had not played golf with Kim during the trip, leading voters to believe the accusation had been manufactured. They concluded that this was a misleading statement aimed at influencing voters during a campaign, and thus grounds for overturning his earlier acquittal.

The two dissenting justices took a grammatical approach. Breaking down Lee’s sentence structure, they argued that his statement was narrowly directed at the photo itself — its editing and presentation — rather than the underlying golf accusation. They maintained that the phrase “it was fabricated” referred to the photo, not the broader allegation.

While linguistically plausible, such parsing is unlikely to reflect how most voters would interpret the comment in real time. That broader public perception — how voters understood the message — appears to have guided the majority’s reasoning, which aligns with the legal standard for election law violations.

The case has also reignited concerns over judicial neutrality. All ten justices in the majority were appointed during the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, while the two dissenters were nominated by his predecessor, Moon Jae-in. These appointments have fueled perceptions that political loyalty may be coloring judicial outcomes, an issue also raised during the Constitutional Court’s recent impeachment review of Yoon.

But such assumptions are not always accurate. As former Constitutional Court President Lee Kang-kook, who also served as a Supreme Court justice, has explained, Supreme Court justices are nominated by the Chief Justice before being formally appointed by the president. Of the ten justices who ruled against Lee, three — Oh Seok-jun, Seo Kyung-hwan and Kwon Young-joon — were nominated by former Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su, not Yoon.

Democratic Party chief Lee Jae-myung speaks to reporters after being acquitted by the Seoul High Court of violating the Public Official Election Act on March 26. [NEWS1]

Despite this, the DP has responded with calls to expand the number of justices — an apparent attempt to rebalance the bench. Such proposals raise serious concerns. Former Justice Kim Young-ran once said, “The day of your appointment is the last happy day for a Supreme Court justice,” highlighting the intense workload and stress that define the job. Increasing the number of justices might ease that burden, but packing the court with politically favorable judges would only deepen public distrust in the judiciary.

Moreover, Chief Justice Jo has over two years remaining in his term. Any attempt to install ideologically aligned justices in the near term is unlikely to succeed and risks further politicizing the courts.

The Supreme Court is not immune to criticism, nor should it be. But reforming the judiciary for the sake of political retribution is a dangerous road. Democratic institutions are not strengthened by undermining their independence. In the long run, efforts to control the courts tend to yield more damage than benefit — not only for the justice system but for democracy itself.

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