Donald Trump lost a high-profile battle at the Supreme Court this week when justices upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting his push to strip that right from children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents. On the surface, it looked like a genuine setback for one of his signature agenda items.
Look deeper, and the real story emerges: the court has handed Trump far more power than it took away.
The same judicial body designed by the nation's founders to check an overreaching president has instead dismantled constraints on executive authority at a pace that alarmed legal scholars across the ideological spectrum. In a term that produced multiple Trump-friendly rulings alongside the birthright citizenship loss, the court has reshaped the constitutional landscape in ways that dramatically amplify presidential power.
The birthright citizenship ruling itself revealed how much the legal ground has shifted. Three justices filed dissenting opinions challenging a principle so long considered constitutionally settled that observers expressed surprise the court would even entertain the challenge. A fourth justice voted to keep the rule intact on statutory, not constitutional, grounds. That four of the court's six conservatives were willing to seriously contest something once viewed as untouchable signals a seismic shift in what the court considers legally plausible.
Laurence Tribe, an emeritus law professor at Harvard, drew an ominous conclusion: "The fact that the position taken by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh is even thinkable is revolutionary. We are a heartbeat away from having a majority that fully adopts the Trump program."
The real power shift came Monday, when the court ruled that Trump could remove the head of any federal agency at will. That decision overturned a 90-year-old legal precedent that had constrained presidential removal power. Conservatives justified the ruling through the "unitary executive theory," which grants the president sweeping control over the executive branch and opens the door to what critics call an "imperial presidency."
Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the implications were substantial. "What the court has done with executive power has been really significant in terms of undercutting the administrative state by giving the president much greater power over that state," he noted, adding that the court appeared poised to grant Trump additional authority in future cases.
Beyond executive power, the court has reshaped civil rights law. Its decision to weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act allows Southern legislatures to redraw congressional districts previously configured to ensure racial minority representation. Legal experts predict this will drastically reduce Black representation in Congress.
In the same week as the birthright citizenship ruling, the court delivered other wins for Trump: it rejected transgender girls' participation in female sports, lifted campaign finance restrictions that advantage Republicans, and cleared the way for the administration to strip temporary protective status from Haitian and Syrian refugees.
Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton expert in comparative law, compared the court's approach to how constitutional courts in Russia and Hungary have operated under authoritarian leaders. She explained that courts packed with supportive judges "don't always vote in favor of the autocrat" but instead occasionally rule against them in high-profile cases to maintain legitimacy, creating cover for the same outcome through other means.
"The birthright citizenship case is a kind of that," Scheppele said. "A five-to-four vote against something thought so settled you couldn't imagine it changing is not really a loss. It invites Trump to come back with the next proposal."
What comes next is unclear, but legal observers expect the court to entertain arguments once dismissed as fringe. Future cases could challenge whether Congress can constrain presidential power over spending or the composition of government agencies. The civil service itself could be vulnerable to presidential purges.
With a Republican Congress reluctant to challenge Trump and now a court that sees presidentialpower through a monarchical lens, the traditional checks designed to prevent executive overreach have nearly vanished. Tribe summed up the situation bluntly: "We have a Congress that is inert, a president who has no regard for the law or the constitution, and a court whose vision of the presidency is akin to that of a monarch, but stronger. Even King George III had a parliament to worry about."
Author James Rodriguez: "The birthright citizenship ruling was a masterful misdirection, drawing attention away from the court's systematic expansion of presidential power that will reshape American governance for decades."
Comments