Trump’s Executive Overreach: Supreme Court Contemplates Limits
During his tenure, President Donald Trump seemed to utilize his executive power to the fullest, enforcing far-reaching tariffs, executing stringent immigration measures, and even attempting to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor. These actions stirred up controversy and have the potential to generate substantial upheaval in the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda. ‘The upcoming season at the Supreme Court might well be named, ‘Does the president have the power to do all these?’, hinted Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. ‘Although each case presents unique issues, the overarching question, regardless of whether it relates to deportations, tariffs, or dismissals within executive agencies, remains focused on the legitimacy of Trump’s authority in these matters.
Last week, a lower court condemned many of Trump’s tariffs as illegal, stating they went beyond the bounds of a 1977 law devised for dire emergencies. In response, Trump’s administration appealed the ruling this Wednesday, urging the justices to hasten their review. The litigation pertaining to these issues will inevitably bring Trump’s extent of authority under scrutiny, particularly so considering his rather audacious interpretation of his jurisdiction and his administration’s ingenious interpretation and implementation of his directives.
With a conservative majority of 6-3, the court has previously facilitated substantial victories for the Trump administration during his second term. Even while various policy challenges were unfolding in lower courts, the justices awarded emergency orders enabling the deployment of his policies. Upon their return in September after the summer break, they will likely consider appeals ranging between 60-70, within the October to June term. These decisions could heavily revolve around the actions arising out of Trump’s extensive claims of executive authority.
As per Robert Luther III, a George Mason University law professor, ‘The depth of executive power has been a repetitive legal quandary of Trump’s second term and seems set to remain so. There is indeed no feasible cause for President Trump to alter this approach, as the Supreme Court has historically supported his assertive declarations of presidential authority.’
The U.S. Court of Appeals cast a 7-4 decision that questioned what Trump refers to as ‘reciprocal’ tariffs, levied in April, along with other tariffs imposed against China, Canada, and Mexico in February. The issue revolves around whether Trump had exceeded his jurisdiction when he implemented the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enforce these tariffs, marking its first use for this purpose. Tariffs have served as a fundamental element of U.S. foreign policy under Trump, being utilized to enforce political strain and re-negotiate trade agreements with exporting nations.
Trump’s immigration guidelines have faced similar objections. A federal appeals court based in New Orleans concluded recently that Trump’s enactment of a 1798 statute to deport Venezuelan migrants—who stand accused of gang affiliation—is likely illegal. Historically, this rule has only been enacted during wartime. The Alien Enemies Act broadly empowers the federal government to detain and repatriate citizens from unfriendly nations during a war or an ‘invasion or predatory incursion.’
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals impeded the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the act. This decision challenges the Trump administration’s assumption that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had initiated a ‘predatory incursion’ onto U.S. land. The Supreme Court’s opposition to Trump’s administration in this area has been a rare event. In May, the justices chided his administration for an attempt to expel Venezuelan migrants from a Texas detention center without sufficient legal proceedings.
Another case that calls into question Trump’s authority involves his recent bid to terminate Lisa Cook from her position as a Federal Reserve Board of Governors member, which determines U.S. monetary policy. Cook has swiftly filed a counter lawsuit seeking to quell the action, igniting a legal battle that endangers long-standing norms regarding the independence of the Federal Reserve.
Trump’s administration has charged Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, with mortgage fraud—an allegation she strongly refutes. Cook maintains that even if there were inaccuracies in her mortgage applications, they do not constitute just cause for removal, given that all pertinent information was disclosed through her vetting in 2022. This case could significantly impact the long-held independence of the Federal Reserve from political influence.
Trump has instigated a wave of legal challenges by his targeted strategies like the dismantling of diversity measures, withholding congressionally allocated monies, and discriminatory practices against certain demographic categories like transgender individuals, among other contentious issues. An increasing number of these lawsuits are hurdling through the appeals process. The Supreme Court has been considering some of them on an emergency basis as the administration battles against attempts to impede its policies while the legal contestations unfold.
Up to present, the court has almost consistently favored Trump in these cases. During May, the Supreme Court authorized the termination of temporary deportation protections that were put in place during the Biden-era for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. This action effectively paused a judge’s ruling against the government. This judgement was upheld by a San Francisco-based U.S. appeals court towards the end of August, subsequently leading to further appeal.
In June, the court conceded the Trump administration’s power to deport immigrants to countries other than their homelands, even in instances involving politically unstable locales such as South Sudan. These deportations took place without providing the individuals an opportunity to demonstrate the potential dangers they could encounter. The court has further bolstered Trump’s power over independent federal agencies that were formulated by Congress to function independent of presidential control by approving his dismissal of Democratic members from federal labor boards and the topmost consumer product safety regulatory.
In the upcoming term of the Supreme Court, the extent of executive power and its use during Trump’s administration is set to be a key focus. The Supreme Court will likely have to grapple with a series of cases pertaining to tariffs, immigration, and the dismissal of federal officials—not to mention the ongoing legal battle concerning the Federal Reserve’s independence.
Although the Supreme Court has generally supported Trump’s expansive claims of executive authority, the approaching legal battles could provide a more detailed examination of the administration’s unique methods in implementing its policies. This is especially critical given the administration’s frequent reliance on older laws to justify contentious policies.
Ultimately, the upcoming Supreme Court term assimilates a crucial period that may define the boundaries of executive power in the United States and clarify the extent of Trump’s authority within the confines of his role as President.