United States Supreme Court

In the Roth family’s debate over whether to leave, the United States Supreme Court becomes a focal point for the belief that law might still protect Jewish citizens from discriminatory government action. The novel presents the Court as a potential safeguard invoked in argument and imagined as a route to challenge coercive relocation, while leaving its actual response unresolved.

Rights and the decision to stay

Herman Roth argues that the family should not follow Shepsie Tirschwell’s decision to move to Canada. He believes that anti-Semitic pressure is intended to make Jewish families abandon the country, and he counters that there is still a liberal Supreme Court capable of upholding their rights. His confidence in the institution supports his larger case for staying: legal protections, public officials, and elections remain available, he says, so departure is not the only response to danger.

That confidence is not shared by Bess Roth. When Herman points to the coming congressional election as another source of hope, she doubts that the result will help, predicting greater strength for the Republican Party. Their disagreement leaves the Court carrying more than a legal function: it stands for Herman’s insistence that the country’s institutions can still be trusted, against Bess’s fear that political change may make that trust insufficient.

A proposed legal remedy

When the family discusses being forced from Newark under Homestead 42, Bess objects that taking Jewish residents from their homes and directing where they must live is illegal. Sandy Roth responds sarcastically by suggesting that they sue the United States. Philip Roth answers that they can take the case to the United States Supreme Court. The exchange identifies a concrete possible remedy, but no lawsuit or ruling follows in the cited episode. The Court is raised as a destination for a challenge, not shown deciding one.

The family’s exchange also reveals how uncertain the prospect of legal protection feels in practice. Bess’s objection rests on the apparent illegality of the policy; Sandy’s sarcasm treats that objection as powerless; and Philip’s brief reply reopens the possibility of appeal. The Court thus enters the conversation as a counter to helplessness, without resolving whether legal recourse can prevent the family’s displacement.

Courts within the political landscape

Elsewhere, the account of Lionel Bengelsdorf’s wedding lists judicial figures among the many officials and dignitaries in attendance: a circuit judge and two district judges from the federal court in New Jersey, along with the district attorney. These officials are not identified as members of the United States Supreme Court. Their presence places the lower federal judiciary within the public and political establishment surrounding Bengelsdorf, while the Court invoked by Herman and Philip remains a higher, prospective source of protection.

Significance and limits

The United States Supreme Court matters in these passages chiefly as a claim about what the law might still do. Herman relies on it to defend staying, and Philip names it as a place to challenge forced relocation. Yet Bess’s doubts and Sandy’s mockery prevent that appeal from becoming a settled assurance. The novel keeps the distinction clear: the existence of a court may sustain hope, but the family’s immediate conflict is not resolved by a judgment.