Presidential Power and the Supreme Court: A Legal Crossroad
Last week, an anecdote emerged from the Oval Office where the president reportedly reacted with irritation to a Wall Street acronym, TACO, meaning “Trump Always Chickens Out.” Beyond the quip, a pressing concern looms regarding whether it is not the president, but the Supreme Court, that will step back when facing crucial decisions.
Historically, major constitutional questions have revolved around individual rights and the balance between state and federal power. Currently, the focus is on the extent of presidential power. At issue is whether effective checks and balances will prevail when a president acts beyond their legal authority.
Judicial fortitude has been evident as lower federal courts consistently counteract such overreaches, with at least 185 rulings identified. A particularly significant decision came from the Court of International Trade in Manhattan. A panel of judges, appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump, invalidated most of the Trump administration’s tariffs. This ruling underscores the constitutional delegation of trade authority to Congress, as detailed in the Constitution and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which does not confer such tariff powers to the president.
While a federal judge shortly thereafter upheld this perspective, an appeals court has temporarily allowed the tariffs to remain. This issue is likely to soon escalate to the Supreme Court, raising anticipation and concern.
Unexpected alliances have formed in this legal landscape. The Brennan Center, for instance, filed an amicus brief alongside the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a separate case, Emily Ley Paper v. Trump. Though ideologically disparate, both parties align against perceived constitutional infringements. Similarly, organizations like Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union have initiated cases against what they argue are presidential overextensions, prompting significant judicial responses.
The trajectory of these cases toward appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court introduces a layer of complexity. The ideological leanings of higher courts, increasingly sympathetic to presidential authority, could alter the judicial landscape. The Brennan Center’s Constitutional Crisis Litigation Project actively participates by coordinating briefs to highlight judicial responsibility to the law and uphold constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court faces a critical test. Recent rulings, such as one asserting broad presidential immunity under the guise of “official” actions, foreshadow potential outcomes. The forthcoming rulings could redefine executive power, especially regarding presidential attempts to influence agency leadership or terminate programs unilaterally.
In a telling move, the Supreme Court recently permitted the president to dismiss leaders of the National Labor Relations Board during ongoing legal proceedings, which The National Review heralded as a “huge interim victory.” However, questions remain about the enduring impact of such decisions on agency independence and broader governance structures, such as the Federal Reserve.
Imminent decisions could address whether presidents can independently dissolve agencies or withhold congressionally allocated funds. The viability of the “major questions” doctrine, touted to protect legislative prerogatives, is also under scrutiny, with implications for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Additionally, the Alien Enemies Act’s application during peacetime for deporting immigrants is under judicial review.
While the notion of a president “chickening out” persists, the onus now rests on the Supreme Court in 2025 to ensure that constitutional boundaries and accountability are maintained.
