The Supreme Court’s new term will address significant constitutional questions regarding presidential authority, particularly in relation to President Trump’s executive actions and their legal challenges.
The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term on Monday, focusing on controversial prior rulings and reviewing the sweeping executive agenda of President Donald Trump. After a three-month recess, the nine justices reconvened to reset their docket and discuss appeals that accumulated over the summer. This term, the Court will tackle a range of issues, including gender identity, election redistricting, and free speech. However, the specter of Trump-era legal battles looms large as the administration’s appeals reach the high court for final review.
Since January, the Supreme Court has largely favored the Trump administration in emergency appeals, which primarily addressed whether challenged policies could temporarily go into effect while lower courts deliberated. These cases have encompassed immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions, and policies concerning transgender individuals in the military. The conservative majority, which holds a 6-3 advantage, has reversed approximately two dozen nationwide injunctions imposed by lower federal courts, leading to frustration and confusion among judges.
Legal analysts suggest that the Court may be poised to grant broad unilateral powers to the president as these petitions reach the Supreme Court for final review. The justices have fast-tracked the administration’s appeal concerning tariffs on numerous countries that were previously blocked by lower courts, with oral arguments scheduled for November. In December, they will consider whether to overturn a 90-year precedent regarding the president’s authority to dismiss members of certain federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. Additionally, in January, the Court will evaluate President Trump’s power to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
Thomas Dupree, a prominent appellate attorney and constitutional law expert, noted, “A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question: ‘can President Trump do?’— then fill in the blank.” This could encompass imposing tariffs, firing independent board members, removing undocumented immigrants, or deploying the military in cities like Los Angeles. Much of the Court’s decisions this term will revolve around whether the president has acted within or exceeded his authority.
The tariffs dispute represents the Court’s first major constitutional test regarding the extent of presidential power, setting a precedent for future appeals related to Trump’s executive agenda. In earlier cases concerning temporary enforcement of these policies, the Court’s liberal justices cautioned against the judiciary becoming a mere rubber stamp for presidential actions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her conservative colleagues for accommodating the Trump administration, stating, “Right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints, the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible.”
Despite these criticisms, some justices have denied that they are facilitating Trump’s aggressive attempts to reshape the federal government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the importance of separating powers, stating, “No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed this sentiment, asserting that the Court does not align with political parties and is focused on making impartial decisions. “We’re taking each case and we’re looking at the question of presidential power as it comes,” Barrett remarked.
The ideological divisions within the Court are expected to intensify as justices examine the scope of presidential power and their own authority. Trump has previously suggested that actions taken in the name of national interest may justify legal violations, stating, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Federal courts have been grappling with defining the limits of executive power while also managing their own jurisdiction.
Numerous federal judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, have expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s frequent overturning of lower court rulings related to Trump administration policies, often with minimal explanation. These judges, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, conveyed that such actions have created a perception of bias against the president and have left them feeling ineffective in their roles.
Judge James Wynn, a federal appeals judge, criticized the high court for leaving lower courts in a state of uncertainty, stating, “We’re out here flailing… They could easily just give us direction, and we would follow it.” While the Trump administration has achieved short-term victories in a Court where he appointed a third of the justices, the president and his associates have not hesitated to criticize federal judges, even calling for their impeachment when rulings have not favored the administration.
According to an analysis by Stanford University’s Adam Bonica, federal district judges ruled against the Trump administration 94.3% of the time between May and June. However, the Supreme Court has reversed those injunctions over 90% of the time, granting the president temporary authority to advance his reform agenda.
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to directly criticize Trump has been evident, with justices navigating a delicate balance. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently remarked on the challenges facing the rule of law, stating, “Once we lose our common norms, we’ve lost the rule of law completely.” Chief Justice John Roberts has also publicly addressed the calls for impeachment from the right, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
As public confidence in major institutions continues to decline, a recent Fox News poll indicated that 47% of voters approve of the Supreme Court’s performance, a notable increase from the previous year. However, a significant portion of the public perceives the Court as leaning too conservative, with 43% of voters expressing this sentiment.
This term, the Court’s ability to remain apolitical will be tested as it considers several contentious appeals, including those related to same-sex marriage and school prayer. The justices are expected to decide soon whether to include these cases on their argument calendar, with potential rulings anticipated by June 2026.
As the Supreme Court embarks on this pivotal term, the implications of its decisions on presidential power and the broader legal landscape will be closely watched. The outcomes may not only affect the current administration but could also shape the trajectory of future presidencies.
Source: Original article