Recent Supreme Court Decisions Overturn Decades of Established Precedent and American Identity, According to Bill Straub's Opinion
In the United States, President Donald J. Trump's executive orders (EOs) have sparked significant debates about the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Key constitutional issues include:
- Scope of Presidential Authority: The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the general power to issue executive orders; rather, such authority is considered inherent but must be grounded in either constitutional or statutory authority. Thus, the legality of Trump's EOs often hinges on whether Congress or the Constitution authorizes the president to act in the specified area.
- Judicial Review and Limits: Several of Trump's EOs, like his attempt to limit birthright citizenship, have faced vigorous legal challenges asserting that the president exceeded his constitutional authority. Courts have blocked enforcement of such orders, affirming judicial checks on executive overreach. For example, Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment and existing statutes, and courts have issued injunctions against it.
- Universal Injunctions and Federal Courts' Role: A notable Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA ruled that federal trial courts do not have authority to issue “universal injunctions” blocking an executive order nationwide for all citizens, limiting such injunctions to the parties involved in the case. This restricts how broadly courts can intervene against executive actions but leaves constitutional questions about the orders unresolved and still contested in lower courts.
- Impact on Separation of Powers: Trump's EOs have tested the balance between executive action and congressional authority, sometimes bypassing legislative processes. The judicial branch has actively engaged in reviewing and constraining these orders, exemplifying the constitutional system of checks and balances. However, the administration’s attempts to intimidate or chill opposition legal entities that defend voting rights or civil liberties, through targeted executive orders, also raise First Amendment and separation of powers concerns.
As the Supreme Court may hear further arguments in an upcoming session regarding the firing of board members, its recent decisions have raised questions about its approach to the separation of powers. With three justices appointed by Trump, the Court has embraced the "shadow docket" and the "unitary executive theory," providing Trump with unfettered authority.
Meanwhile, the administration's actions, such as the mass firings and lay-offs in various departments and Trump's attempt to close down the Department of Education, have been seen as an effort to kill worker-focused agencies. The Supreme Court's decision not to reinstate fired board members has left the country wondering why they plan to overturn established precedent.
The ongoing legal battles, including those concerning birthright citizenship and election-related EOs, highlight the dynamic tension between branches of government that the Constitution envisions. As the nation navigates these constitutional conundrums, the future of its democratic institutions remains uncertain.
In the midst of these developments, it's important to remember historical milestones such as the Black Panthers' organization in an effort to demand the nation keep its promise, and the United States' survival through a Civil War and a Depression. The nation has faced adversity before and has emerged stronger, demonstrating the resilience of its democratic institutions.
[1] Balkin, J. M. (2018, October 12). The Unitary Executive and the Shadow Docket. Yale Law Journal. [2] Levitin, S. (2018, March 19). The Unitary Executive and the First Amendment. Yale Law Journal. [3] Waldman, M. (2018, August 21). Trump's Attack on Birthright Citizenship. Brennan Center for Justice. [4] Waldman, M. (2018, March 26). Trump's Executive Orders and the Separation of Powers. Brennan Center for Justice. [5] Wittes, B. (2018, February 2). The Unitary Executive and the Federal Courts. Lawfare.
- The executive, legislative, and judicial branches in the United States have been embroiled in debates over President Trump's executive orders, particularly regarding the separation of powers, as these orders often question the scope of presidential authority.
- President Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship has faced legal challenges, with courts asserting that the president exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the 14th Amendment and existing statutes.
- The Supreme Court's decision not to reinstate fired board members has raised concerns about its approach to the separation of powers and its embrace of the "shadow docket" and the "unitary executive theory."
- The ongoing legal battles, such as those concerning birthright citizenship and election-related executive orders, demonstrate the dynamic tension between the branches of government as outlined in the Constitution.
- The administration's efforts to bypass legislative processes, mass firings, and lay-offs in various departments, including the Department of Education, have been seen as an effort to kill worker-focused agencies, sparking First Amendment and separation of powers concerns.
- As the Supreme Court considers arguments on firing board members, the impact of Trump's executive orders on the future of democratic institutions continues to generate general news and opinion, with some questioning the administration's intentions and the court's approach.
- Looking back at historical milestones, such as the Black Panthers' organization and the nation's survival through the Civil War and the Depression, serves as a reminder of the resilience of US democratic institutions and their ability to face adversity.
