The Supreme Court is closing in on a series of late-term decisions that could reshape the reach of presidential authority as President Donald Trump defends several disputed actions involving immigration, federal removals and independent agencies.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A cluster of unresolved Supreme Court cases is putting President Donald Trump’s second-term use of executive power at the center of the court’s closing stretch, with rulings still pending on birthright citizenship, federal personnel removals, immigration protections and other high-profile disputes.
The justices released five opinions Tuesday and are expected to issue more Thursday as they move toward the end of a term that began in early October. Supreme Court terms usually conclude near the end of June, though they sometimes extend into July. The court has not said when it will finish its remaining work before leaving for summer recess.
The most closely watched pending cases include challenges tied directly to Trump’s effort to assert broader presidential control across the federal government. Among them are disputes over his attempt to narrow birthright citizenship, remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, dismiss Democratic members of independent agencies and end humanitarian legal protections that have shielded hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants from deportation.
The timing is typical, but the volume of consequential disputes is not, University of Michigan constitutional law professor Sam Erman said.
“It’s totally normal for the most important cases of the term to come out in the last few days. What is unusual is that there are so many blockbuster cases,” said Erman, an expert on the Supreme Court.
Trump’s second term has produced hundreds of legal challenges as he has pursued an expansive view of presidential power in both domestic and foreign policy. Many of those fights have reached a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.
The court has already allowed several Trump policies to move forward on an emergency basis while legal challenges continue in lower courts, signaling that the conservative majority has been open to at least some of the administration’s arguments when lower courts have blocked parts of his agenda.
“We’ve seen a lot of novel uses of presidential power since Trump took office, and that’s produced some big questions about the nature of government and how presidential power works. So that’s produced a very active Supreme Court term, and a big bang at the end,” Erman said.
The conservative majority has increasingly shown interest in the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that control over the executive branch rests with the president. That view could help Trump in disputes involving his authority to remove officials from independent federal bodies.
Still, the administration may face a harder path in cases where the president’s actions test other constitutional limits. Some court observers have said Trump appears more likely to prevail in cases involving independent commission removals than in disputes over birthright citizenship or the firing of Cook from the Federal Reserve.
“They have a view of a strong executive, but it’s not an unlimited executive,” Erman said of the conservative justices. “So when he is essentially advancing their project, he’s pretty likely to win.”
The birthright citizenship case could become one of the term’s most significant immigration rulings. Trump’s executive order seeks to restrict the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision, which has been understood to recognize citizenship for people born in the United States.
Erman said the court is unlikely to accept the argument that Trump can restrict birthright citizenship by executive order.
The justices have not ruled uniformly in Trump’s favor. In February, the court struck down sweeping global tariffs Trump had imposed under a law designed for national emergencies. After that decision, Trump criticized the court broadly and attacked the justices who ruled against him.
Beyond the Trump-specific cases, the court still has major rulings pending on elections, political spending, transgender policies and gun laws.
One election case comes from Mississippi, where Republicans are challenging a state law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrive within five days after Election Day. A ruling against that grace period could encourage stricter ballot deadlines in other states.
Another case, involving Vice President JD Vance, asks whether federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates violate free speech protections. Republicans are leading the effort to strike down those limits.
The court has already altered the voting-rights landscape this term. In April, the conservative majority weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 civil rights law enacted to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
That decision triggered quick redistricting efforts across the South, where Republican-led states moved to eliminate U.S. House districts with Black voter majorities or near-majorities. The changes could affect control of Congress in the November midterm elections, as Republicans seek to keep their majority and Black voters generally support Democratic candidates.
The justices are also weighing state laws from West Virginia and Idaho that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The cases come as states across the country have moved to restrict transgender rights.
A pending Second Amendment case centers on Hawaii’s limits on carrying handguns on private property open to the public, including most businesses, unless the property owner gives permission. Trump’s administration supports the challenge to the Hawaii law.
The court last week unanimously rejected another position taken by Trump’s administration in a separate gun-rights case involving marijuana users who own firearms. The administration’s stance had threatened the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana.
The remaining opinions could determine not only the outcome of several major Trump policies, but also the court’s direction on election rules, federal campaign spending, transgender athlete restrictions and public-carry gun laws as the term nears its conclusion.
Original article
Comments