Recent action by the justices is setting off new conversations about Supreme Court reform.
It's been a busy and volatile term for SCOTUS.
"I think one of the things we see in the Trump vs. U.S. is that the court is really inserting themselves into the midst of this highly politicized issue," said Alison LaCroix, a University of Chicago law professor.
Monday's decision allowing presidents to operate above the law left many constitutional law experts scratching their heads.
"I don't remember a decision that frightened me more than this one, or a decision that I thought was as wrong-headed as this one. Our entire country was built on the premise that we wanted to avoid tyranny," said Martin Redish, a Northwestern School of Law professor.
There were many blockbuster cases this year, including cases on voting rights, guns, homelessness, public corruption, rolling back environmental laws and allowing former President Donald Trump to remain on the Colorado ballot.
SEE ALSO: How will the Supreme Court's immunity decision impact Trump's 4 criminal cases?
"It's more of these cases, where they say, 'we know what the founders thought, so we can overturn the law as it's been,'" LaCroix said.
LaCroix is a constitutional law expert and a historian. She said the current high court is not interpreting history correctly.
LaCroix said while Supreme Courts have always been political, the current block of conservative justices are changing the meaning of the law based on their own version of history.
"They're very willing to overturn precedent and to just say, 'this principle in law, stare decisis, it stands decided.' They basically say, 'we're not bound by that. And we don't even have a preference for not overturning the law,'" LaCroix said.
LaCroix said SCOTUS' recent rulings have reignited legal conversations about Supreme Court reforms, such as adding more justices or term limits for the lifetime appointees
LaCroix said term limits are the most talked about reform because just about every constitutional democracy has them for their high courts. But, in the U.S., Congress is needed to make it happen.