In Washington, President Donald Trump faces significant legal hurdles as he seeks Supreme Court backing for a series of bold initiatives in his second term. Despite appointing three justices, the Court’s conservative majority may still challenge some of his more controversial actions.
Last year, the Supreme Court granted Trump significant legal victories, including delaying his criminal trial and granting him immunity for official acts, which helped pave his path to reelection. However, Trump’s initial presidency saw a mix of triumphs and setbacks before the justices.
Michael Waldman, president of NYU’s Brennan Center, commented on the potential constitutional challenges ahead. “It will be an extraordinary test for the Roberts Court whether it’s willing to stand up for constitutional principles it has long embraced,” he stated.
Numerous legal battles already loom, with lower courts halting orders on birthright citizenship, government spending freezes, and federal worker buyouts. Legal challenges also target policies on transgender rights, asylum-seeker limitations, and the closure of USAID.
During his first term, Trump experienced mixed outcomes at the Supreme Court. A 5-4 decision supported his travel ban from several predominantly Muslim nations, but only after revising the initial proposals. The Court also sided with Trump in dismissing the head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and allowing the use of Pentagon funds for a border wall, amid ongoing litigation.
Conversely, Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal justices to block Trump’s efforts to rescind DACA and to prevent a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Roberts notably rebuked Trump for criticizing a judge as an “Obama judge” following a ruling against his asylum policy.
Key Legal Battles Ahead
One of the first critical tests may involve Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. A San Francisco federal judge has blocked the order, but the administration plans to appeal, potentially bringing the issue to the Supreme Court soon.
Legal experts, including Case Western Reserve University’s Jonathan Adler, express skepticism about the order prevailing in its current form. “I’m exceedingly skeptical about there being any votes for the birthright citizenship executive order as written,” Adler remarked.
Federal Spending Freeze and Agency Closures
Trump’s initiatives to halt federal spending and close USAID might also encounter judicial resistance, even with a conservative Court. More modest proposals may stand a better chance, as indicated by historical precedents like the revised travel ban.
“The court will be more skeptical, especially if the administration tries to completely unwind an agency that has been created by statute,” stated Villanova University law professor Michael Moreland.
Presidential Authority over Dismissals
Trump’s authority to dismiss National Labor Relations Board member Gynne A. Wilcox and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission members Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels appears more secure. Wilcox has filed a lawsuit challenging her dismissal, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court reconsideration of longstanding legal precedents.
The 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor case, which limited presidential power to fire agency members, may be reexamined. Moreland speculates that the ruling could be “if not outright overruled — at least severely constrained.”
