After many Trump’s controversial policies allowed them to move forward temporarily, the Supreme Court now decides their ultimate fate.
Trump’s tariffs were found illegal by the Court of Appeal
The appeals court ruled that President Trump had stepped over his authority when he imposed a swept tariff.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s winning streak at the Supreme Court is about to take the test.
Up until now, courts have largely opposed the fact that Trump’s controversial policies can move forward while they file lawsuits.
Now that some challenges have passed the lower courts, judges begin to determine the ultimate fate of Trump’s policy in a new period that begins on October 6th.
According to a September Marquette Law School poll released on October 2, the Supreme Court believes it will go out of the way to avoid a ruling against Trump.
The judiciary also addresses issues of culture war, including whether states can ban “transformation therapy,” preventing transgender athletes from playing women’s sports. And they will hear a dispute over constituency changes and campaign spending restrictions that could affect future elections.
But the main focus is on the ongoing test of restrictions on Trump’s authority, beginning with the signature initiative, the king of major tariffs and major foreign policy at the heart of Trump’s economic policy. The case will be heard by the court in early November.
In December, the court will consider whether Trump can remove the head of independent agencies for any reason.
In January, the court will take on Trump’s efforts to fire Lisa cook from the Federal Reserve. The case raises questions about whether the central bank is different from other independent institutions and the implications of removing the Fed governor “for a cause.”
Other presidential priorities that judges can take up in the coming months include Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
Samuel Bray, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said:
Courts may be wary of killing Trump’s tariffs
Donald Veriri, a lawyer general in the Obama administration, said the court hopes to show that it supports traditional checks and balances between the administrative department and the other two branches of the government.
But it is difficult to predict when the judiciary will do so, he said in a back-to-school public debate at Georgetown Law School.
Trump’s tariffs could provide solid ground for presidential forces to enforce restrictions, Verrilli said. But before removing such major policy initiatives from Trump, he added that judges would feel they needed “a rather strong case of legal merit.”
“In this case, I can’t help but think that it will hover through the decision-making process,” Verrilli said.
Conservative justice expected to side with Trump in an independent institution
Court watchers hope that the conservative majority will be on their side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over independent bodies, at least for non-Fed agencies.
For many years, the High Court has declined a 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Enforcer vs. United States.
When the majority said Trump was the FTC’s last Democrat, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, writing that her colleagues were “hoping” to overturn Humphrey’s enforcer.
That’s not the only thing that courts can be promoted.
Courts could overturn 2001 campaign spending restrictions
Republicans argue that the 2001 decision would no longer be appropriate to limit how much political parties can spend in collaboration with federal candidates on advertising and other messaging.
In a case that was partially launched by Vice President JD Vance, who was a Senator, the GOP says changes to campaign finance rules since 2001 have led to virtually unlimited spending by the Super Political Action Committee or PAC.
As a result, Republicans are undermining political parties and their major donors have turned to super PACs, which act as “shadow parties,” hurting the political system.
Jennifer Nu, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, says that if the court agrees, the actual meaning is that the president who controls a political party can have more influence over the election.
Courts may hinder minority major voting rights law protections
In another major election-related case, non-black voters are challenging two majority black districts on the Louisiana Legislature’s map.
This case – the court took up the previous term but did not decide – tests a balance law that does not discriminate against other voters but must protect the voting power of racial minorities. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states must portray majority minority districts when necessary to provide minority voters with equal opportunities to select candidates for their choice. However, the Constitution’s Equality Protection Clause limits how many races are the key factors in creating districts.
The court’s decision to rehearse cases indicates that sections of the Voting Rights Act, which protect the ability of minorities to select candidates, could be at risk.
“We’ve seen a lot of people who have had a lot of trouble with us,” said Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University Law School.
If the courts effectively dismantle these protections, southern states will have more freer hands to redraw Congressional boundaries in a way that will help the GOP maintain control of the House in next year’s midterm elections.
“Conversion therapy” and ban trans athletes
The issue of the culture war will also be aired in court.
One of the first cases of the term, and one of the most controversial, the judge takes on the challenge of counselors to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ minors.
In response to the Trump administration’s request, the Justice Department was given time during oral discussion to support the counselor’s position that the ban violated First Amendment rights by “censoring” conversations with clients.
Even bigger issues for Trump – what he campaigns is to prevent trans women and girls from competing in women’s school sports teams.
Courts are considering Idaho and West Virginia bans on trans-athletes, which are similar to the bans in more than half of the US.
Becky Pepper Jackson, a student challenging the West Virginia ban, took adolescent block medications and never experienced the effects of testosterone as a result. Boise State senior Lindsay Hecox played “uncut” club sports because he wasn’t fast enough to create a cross-country and track team for the National College Athletics Association.
They argue that the ban should not apply to people in situations like theirs.
Alan Morrison of George Washington University Law School said that students are “the best case” for students looking to challenge the state’s ban.
Justice can support a state ban, regardless of where one transitions are or what athletic ability is.
“In these cases, if they control the state,” he said, “it’s over.”
