In recent events concerning President Donald Trump’s attempts to reshape the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions that carry significant implications. Through a couple of decisions comprised of less than 500 concise words, the justices have subtly influenced two major issues: the ability of the Trump administration to immediately dismiss the leader of a watchdog agency, and an effort to obstruct the release of approximately $2 billion in foreign aid.
The court did not grant the administration the authority it sought in either case. The decisions highlight the judiciary’s role as a pivotal check on executive power, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress that largely supports or remains silent on Trump’s initiatives.
Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department official under George W. Bush, suggests that the court benefits by proceeding cautiously, achieving necessary immediate outcomes without prematurely revealing its stance on the cases’ merits. The Supreme Court, significantly influenced by Trump’s three appointees during his first term, faces several potential interactions with presidential power in the future.
Despite a conservative majority, which favors a strong presidential authority, the court may be hesitant to fully endorse all of Trump’s aspirations, such as his contentious move to end birthright citizenship. Such a change would disregard over a century of precedent and challenge a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
More than 100 lawsuits have so far contested this and other administration actions, with lower courts frequently pausing Trump’s plans. These interventions have largely focused not on what the president aims to accomplish, but rather on federal judges’ procedural assessments of the administration’s actions.
While Trump’s allies, including notable figures like Elon Musk, have criticized the judiciary’s interruption of his agenda – some even calling for impeachment or challenging court orders – the judiciary has stood firm. The Federal Judges Association has condemned such rhetoric as dangerously misleading, potentially eroding public trust in judicial integrity.
Despite Trump’s acknowledgment of the court’s authority, some figures, including Vice President JD Vance, hint at possible defiance of court mandates, positing a constitutional crisis. Trump’s administration has been quick to appeal contentious rulings, although compliance with such judicial decisions remains under scrutiny.
According to Jeffrey Schmitt, a University of Dayton School of Law professor, the administration seems to navigate a fine line, attempting not to overtly flout judicial authority while avoiding altering its conduct. As more lawsuits progress, the Supreme Court’s involvement is likely to increase.
Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, observes that the Supreme Court appears to advocate for adherence to normal judicial processes. Scholars, including Greenfield, have voiced concerns about a looming constitutional crisis due to Trump’s actions. A progressive group, Court Accountability, notes that a recent court order concerning a foreign aid freeze, although perceived as a setback for the administration, may still have favored Trump’s interests by delaying aid distribution.
Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law professor, criticized the court’s reluctance to resolve pressing constitutional questions regarding presidential power. He suggests that district judges feel empowered to issue orders against the executive branch without Supreme Court intervention, labeling the situation as judicial overreach.
Recent developments, however, demonstrate the court’s cautious judicial approach. A ruling on February 21 temporarily upheld the position of Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, despite efforts by Trump to remove him. The Supreme Court refrained from a definitive ruling, opting to wait for lower courts to conclude their proceedings.
Following an unfavorable appellate court decision, Dellinger withdrew his legal contest, having postponed the dismissal of 5,000 federal employees. Subsequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the administration’s request as moot.
This episode foreshadows potential high-court deliberations over presidential authority in federal employee management and associated civil service protections.
In another notable case, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali restricted an administration order regarding foreign aid payments, mandating immediate disbursement only to plaintiffs originally involved in the lawsuit. With numerous lawsuits emerging concerning funding freezes, both domestic and international, these “power of the purse” disputes appear likely to return to the Supreme Court.
Although relatively restrained in early Trump-era interventions, the Supreme Court’s role is anticipated to become increasingly pronounced. The future remains uncertain as Trump’s presidency continues to test the legal boundaries of executive power.
