This chapter further examines the challenge to the US courts in so-called ‘culture war’ cases to straightforwardly reaffirm certain basic human rights through constitutional interpretation. The argument is made here that judicial reticence in this regard is a form of ‘de-judicialization’ undermining the role and sanctity of the courts in a democracy. The U.S. indigenous child welfare case discussed highlights the US Supreme Court’s missed opportunity there to frame the core issues in the case as not just involving (a) the scope of competing authorities of various US sovereigns (the federal government, State government and indigenous tribal government) in the indigenous child welfare space but rather as (b) issues implicating also the need for judicial shielding of democratically based fundamental human rights. The ‘Independent Legislature Theory’ cases (discussed in the latter part of the chapter) raise the question of whether US States, through their legislatures, should be permitted to draw up extremely gerrymandered districting maps for federal voting purposes (i.e., thereby unfairly advantaging the candidates of the legislature’s preferred party) without being fettered by State courts or the United State Supreme Court.