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.
Read also:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
- Massive 8.8 earthquake hits off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula, prompting Japan to issue a tsunami alert.
- Court petitions to reverse established decision on same-sex marriage legalization
- Independence supporters in New Caledonia refuse agreement offering authority without a vote on sovereignty
