Judgments by the Supreme Court erode years of established law and shape the essence of American identity, according to Bill Straub's opinion piece.
In a series of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has shown increasing deference to the President's executive orders, potentially leading to a more powerful executive branch. Critics argue that this trend may result in a "new way to hand power to a lawless executive," as stated by Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Court's latest approach has narrowed the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions that block executive orders, thereby limiting judicial checks on presidential actions. This shift has allowed some presidential actions to take effect partially or fully without broad judicial interference.
Key constitutional questions about executive orders, such as those related to birthright citizenship, remain unresolved at the Supreme Court but are expected to be addressed in the upcoming term. In recent cases like Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. and Trump v. CASA, the Court has favoured formalist and procedural rationales that limit lower courts' oversight of executive power, even in controversial policies.
The Court's conservative majority also appears to be expanding presidential authority over independent agencies by undermining protections against at-will firing. For instance, the Court's actions have allowed President Trump to remove Biden-appointed agency leaders, indicating a shift towards broader executive control.
This trend of reinforcing executive power and reducing judicial intervention in executive policymaking has been criticized for empowering the Trump administration to act lawlessly and for not providing adequate checks and balances. The Court's embracement of the "shadow docket" and the unitary executive theory has provided Trump with unfettered authority, leading to concerns about the separation of powers.
One example of this is the Supreme Court's decision to allow Trump to proceed with mass firings and lay-offs in various departments, such as Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and more. The Court declined to reinstate fired members of boards like the National Labor Relations Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, stating that the Constitution appears to provide the president with the authority to fire them "without cause."
The issue of presidential authority to fire board members who perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions has been a point of contention. Critics argue that Trump has used this power as an effort to kill worker-focused agencies, such as the Department of Education, which disburses about $150 billion annually to improve educational quality.
As the United States of America enters its 249th year, the nation has faced numerous challenges, from a Civil War and a Depression to widespread civil unrest and protests. However, the current political climate under President Donald J. Trump's administration raises concerns about a shift towards autocracy. With three justices appointed by Trump among the nine members of the Supreme Court, the Court's actions have been seen as a disturbing recent pattern of overturning established precedent.
The Supreme Court may hear further arguments in an upcoming session regarding the issue of presidential authority to fire board members. As the nation navigates these complex issues, the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches remains a topic of significant debate.
Read also:
- Court petitions to reverse established decision on same-sex marriage legalization
- Trump's enforcement actions in Washington D.C.: Insights from the political arena
- Chinese Ambassador issues stern message to India regarding Trump's tariffs in midst of escalating trade feuds
- Aircraft collides with another one on the runway during landing at Montana airport, igniting flames
