US Supreme Court: Key Rulings Shaping Trump’s Power

The US Supreme Court is finalizing a session that balances a 6-3 conservative majority against specific checks on presidential power. While the court weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act and legalized conversion therapy, it ruled against Donald Trump’s punitive tariffs, according to reports from CNN and NPR.

Why did the Supreme Court rule against Trump’s tariffs?

In a surprising move, the high court ruled in February that Donald Trump’s global “punitive tariffs” on imports violated federal law. Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the three liberal justices in the majority, according to CNN.

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh were the only dissenters. The New York Times reported that Trump reacted to the decision by calling the judges who voted against him “fools and lapdogs.” Following the ruling, Trump immediately moved to implement a new general tariff.

How is the 1965 Voting Rights Act being weakened?

The Supreme Court recently favored Republicans by striking down Louisiana’s congressional voting map, citing unconstitutional gerrymandering. This decision significantly eroded the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

NPR reports that this ruling has already prompted Republicans in several Southern states to redraw electoral districts. These changes aim to reduce or eliminate the influence of Black voters in key areas.

Can the president fire the head of the Federal Reserve?

Two pending cases, Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter, could grant the president unprecedented control over independent agencies. Trump is currently attempting to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black woman on the Federal Reserve board.

Professor Adam Crews of Rutgers Law notes that a victory for Trump could overturn a 90-year-old precedent from 1935. If the court rules in Trump’s favor, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the FCC could lose their political independence, according to Crews’ analysis.

Will birthright citizenship end in the US?

The case Trump v. Barbara addresses a presidential order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born in the US to parents without legal residency. Trump argues that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause only applies to children of former slaves, according to NPR.

The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Every lower court judge who has reviewed Trump’s order has labeled it “obviously unconstitutional.”

Trump became the first sitting president to personally attend the oral arguments for this case in April. The New York Times reported that he later complained on social media about “mean, one-sided questions” from the justices.

What other major rulings are pending?

With 22 of 58 cases still awaiting decisions, several other high-impact rulings are expected before July 4. CNN and the New York Times identify eight of these as “major and principled” cases.

• Transgender Sports: West Virginia v. BPJ examines whether state bans on trans women in girls’ sports violate the Constitution. The New York Times reports that justices seemed inclined to allow these bans during January hearings.
• Asylum and Protection: Mullin v. Dahlia and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado deal with the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians, and whether the administration can physically block asylum seekers at border crossings.
• Election Integrity: Watson v. RNC will determine if states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
• Second Amendment: Wolford v. Lopez addresses whether states can prohibit carrying weapons on private property that is open to the public.

Recent Court Decisions at a Glance

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Supreme Court always side with the conservative majority?
No. As seen in the punitive tariffs case, conservative justices like Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett have occasionally voted with the liberal wing against President Trump.

What is “gerrymandering” in the context of the Louisiana case?
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one political party an unfair advantage. In this case, it was used to reduce the voting power of Black citizens.

Why is the 1935 precedent important for the Federal Reserve?
The 1935 precedent ensures that leaders of independent agencies cannot be fired for political reasons, protecting the economy from direct political interference in monetary policy.