Table of Contents
The U.S. Supreme Court, beginning it’s new judicial term on Monday, October 1st, faces a docket brimming with potentially transformative cases. The court typically reviews around 70 cases annually, but a select few stand to capture national attention and reshape legal precedent – echoing decisions like the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
While not formally listed as such, a central theme emerging is “Donald Trump versus American democracy,” arising from a surge in petitions from the Trump administration challenging lower court rulings that have blocked potentially unconstitutional executive actions.Last term, Trump’s administration filed 19 emergency appeals in just five months – a figure that surpasses the combined total from the Biden, Obama, and Bush administrations over four years. As of late September, that number had climbed to 28.
These urgent appeals, often referred to by legal experts as “shadow dockets,” are criticized for lacking thorough deliberation and frequently being issued without detailed reasoning or signatures. According to observers,they represent a pattern of attempting to expand power through procedural maneuvers. The process unfolds as follows: the President issues a decree, it’s promptly challenged in court, lower courts issue stays, and the administration appeals to the Supreme Court seeking permission to proceed and establish a precedent favorable to its agenda.To date, the court has sided with Trump’s administration in approximately 85% of these instances.
The current Supreme Court, ostensibly autonomous, is dominated by a 6-3 conservative supermajority – three of whom were appointed by Trump. Public approval of the court has plummeted to a historic low of 39%, according to Gallup polling, a notable drop from the 56% approval rating Chief Justice John Roberts enjoyed when he assumed the role 20 years ago.
the Constitutionality of Trump’s Tariffs
One of the most significant cases directly involving the former President this term will swiftly address the constitutionality of tariffs imposed by Trump on goods from dozens of countries, leveraging the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. This law allows the President to regulate imports under exceptional circumstances. The challenge is brought by a coalition of five small businesses and a dozen Democratic-led states who argue that the tariffs negatively impact their operations.
The court will also review two high-profile dismissals from the Trump administration: that of federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, facing allegations of mortgage fraud which she denies, and Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic official at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These cases could redefine the boundaries of independence for federal agencies from presidential interference.
Beyond Trump: A Broad Range of Issues
Beyond the numerous cases directly linked to Trump, the Supreme Court’s docket includes a diverse array of issues. These range from the constitutionality of laws prohibiting “conversion therapy” and potential infringements on free speech, to challenges to the timeframe for contesting mail-in ballots, and the safeguarding of voting rights against racial manipulation.
The court recently accepted a case concerning Hawaii’s ability to regulate firearm possession on private property, and two cases regarding the participation of transgender athletes in sports – a topic central to the ideological battles of the “Make America Great again” (MAGA) movement. Oral arguments in the Colorado “conversion therapy” case are scheduled for Tuesday. This case centers on a Christian counselor’s claim that a Colorado law violates her First Amendment rights by prohibiting her from advocating for “conversion therapy” with minors.
Next week, the court will revisit a Louisiana congressional map that increased the number of majority-Black districts, a case with significant implications for voting rights. This follows a previous ruling that effectively dismantled affirmative action in university admissions, and could further erode provisions of the 1965 voting Rights Act designed to prevent minority vote suppression. A separate case concerns a challenge to campaign finance regulations brought by West Virginia Vice President J.D. Vance, potentially loosening restrictions on money in politics – a long-held Republican goal.
Last term, the justices consistently sided with Trump, culminating in a ruling that expanded presidential immunity in the performance of his duties, specifically regarding actions taken in the months leading up to the January 6th Capitol riot. This decision paved the way for his return to the political arena. Now, the fate of his political agenda, and the future of American democracy, rests in the hands of those same judges.
Worth a look
- The Senate Blue Slip, Explained: The Custom Trump Wants Gone (daybreakwire.com)
