Recent Supreme Court rulings have rendered a murky future for the critics who were hoping for a judicial curb on certain actions taken by the Trump Administration. The ability of courts to restrict executive powers, or rather their unwillingness to do so, has come into sharp focus and left many disillusioned.
Barriers to restriction of executive authority arise out of a number of factors, primarily the doctrine of judicial review and the contemporary interpretations of the Constitution in this regard. The aforementioned rulings have clearly highlighted how these two factors, coupled with a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, are turning the cogs away from what critics were hoping for.
One significant illustration is the case regarding the Trump administration’s push to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Critics clamored for judicial intervention to preserve the rights of nearly 700,000 Dreamers. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, stating that the decision to end DACA fell within the lawful boundaries of executive discretion.
Important Supreme Court rulings surrounding controversial Trump policies, such as the travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries and the Pentagon’s diversion of funds to build the border wall, have followed a similar trajectory. In these cases, the Supreme Court’s decision to greenlight these policies has propelled executive authority, giving precedence to the administration’s national security and immigration enforcement claims over concerns about potential constitutional overreach or discrimination.
Amidst these developments, the concept of ‘nondelegation doctrine’ has gained momentum in legal debates. This doctrine proposes that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive. Critics argue that the president exercises powers that actually fall within the domain of the Congress, once again prompting the need for some judicial curb. Despite this argument, recent trends show the Supreme Court expressing reluctance to impose significant limitations or invigorate the nondelegation doctrine, citing potential disruption and gridlock.
Another dynamic that critics were eyeing for a judicial curb was the Federal Judiciary’s ‘Chevron deference.’ This principle mandates federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Critics assert that the Trump administration was taking undue advantage of this principle, circumventing legislative processes by making substantial policy changes under the guise of regulatory interpretation. Yet again, the Supreme Court showed no indication of averting this course.
In summary, the Supreme Court seems to be favoring the bolstering of executive authority rather than curtailing it. Critics who vested their hopes in the Supreme Court to act as a deterrent against perceived constitutional transgressions by the Trump administration have
