Key Takeaways:
- Legal experts warn the U.S. Supreme Court is too often stepping into cases involving former President Donald Trump.
- The Court sometimes rules against Trump but often in ways that expand presidential power.
- Experts say the Court’s decisions sometimes bend the law to favor Trump.
- This trend could hurt the Court’s reputation and lead to bigger political conflicts.
The Supreme Court and Trump: A Troubling Pattern
The U.S. Supreme Court has been getting involved in cases tied to Donald Trump a lot lately. While the Court doesn’t always side with him, legal experts say the pattern is still worrying.
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, who follow the Court closely, recently talked about this. They pointed out that the justices seem to be giving more power to the presidency while also trying to stop Trump’s most extreme actions.
What’s really concerning, Stern said, is how often the Court jumps into these Trump-related disputes. “It’s not just that they’re always on Trump’s side,” he noted, “but they’re doing it way too often for comfort.”
The Shadow Docket: A Powerful Tool
One big issue is the Court’s use of the “shadow docket.” This is a way for the Court to make quick decisions without fully explaining its reasoning.
Stern explained that when the Court uses this process, it doesn’t just focus on what the law says is right or wrong. Instead, it considers vague factors like “balance of the equities” and “irreparable harm.” These terms are like squishy clay the Court can shape to justify decisions that help Trump—even if they don’t follow the law.
For example, the Court recently ruled that leaders of two independent agencies had to stay fired while their cases were in court. Justice Elena Kagan disagreed strongly, saying the Court misapplied the law. Lithwick noted that in this same case, the Court threw out a 90-year-old precedent without explaining why.
Emergencies: A Matter of Feelings
Lithwick and Stern also talked about how the Court handles emergencies. Lithwick said it’s like a “feelings ball.” The justices rely on hunches and whether they think one side’s emergency claims are more legitimate.
Stern agreed. He said the Court is using inconsistent standards when deciding these cases. Meanwhile, the justices try to act like they’re humble and nonpartisan, even as public trust in the Court is dropping.
Things have gotten heated. Some justices are even calling lower court judges “hacks” for standing in Trump’s way. Stern wonders how this will affect the Court’s legitimacy, especially as Trump keeps pushing the limits of what the Court can control.
The Erosion of Public Trust
Lithwick thinks the justices are trying to avoid direct confrontations with Trump by making as few big decisions as possible. But she believes this clash is inevitable.
She said, “As these emergencies keep piling up, the justices will find it harder to stay out of sight or act like they’re not taking sides.” She and Stern have been asking when a full-blown constitutional crisis might happen. That would occur if the Court orders something and the administration simply refuses to obey.
Lithwick added, “We’re not quite there yet, but the justices can’t keep their image and reputation intact by being unclear or avoiding big decisions. At some point, they’ll become irrelevant if they don’t step up.”
A Looming Constitutional Crisis
The Supreme Court is walking a tightrope. On one hand, it’s trying to limit Trump’s most extreme actions. On the other, it’s expanding presidential power in ways that worry legal experts.
The justices are also dealing with a growing lack of trust from the public. As they struggle to balance these challenges, one thing is clear: the Court’s reputation and legitimacy are on the line.
The big question now is whether the Court can find a way to restore trust and fairness or if it will become another casualty of the political battles of the Trump era.
In the end, the Supreme Court’s role in these Trump-related cases is raising red flags. Legal experts warn that the Court’s actions could stocking a constitutional crisis—and the stakes couldn’t be higher.