Will the Supreme Court support or oppose the Trump administration in light of the numerous legal challenges it faces? Some conservative Supreme Court justices seem to align with Trump officials in believing that certain lower court judges have overstepped in their rulings. In a series of recent decisions from April 4 to April 10, the Supreme Court either reversed or scaled back lower court decisions against the Trump administration.
On April 4, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the Trump administration to pause millions in teacher training grants. Subsequently, the court permitted the administration to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act from the 18th century and blocked the reinstatement of 16,000 terminated federal workers. While the high court recently demanded that the administration facilitate the return of a wrongly-deported Maryland father, it also instructed the trial judge to clarify her ruling to acknowledge the administration’s authority over foreign affairs.
The recent decisions were prompted by four of the emergency applications filed by the Trump administration within its initial 80 days. While the Supreme Court still has several applications to address, it is notable that the administration has filed significantly more than the Biden administration during the same timeframe.
Trump secured clear victories with support from Republican-appointed justices, who outnumber Democratic appointees 6-3. Despite these wins, some decisions did challenge the administration. For instance, the court rejected the administration’s argument that it couldn’t facilitate the release of the Maryland father from custody in El Salvador. Additionally, the court provided potential deportees with an alternative to bring new lawsuits despite ruling in favor of Trump’s request to be relieved from certain restraining orders related to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
The recent legal setbacks for Trump officials, such as the ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, have come with some positive outcomes. For example, while the ruling allows potential deportees to file lawsuits, it mandates that they do so in Texas, falling under the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, potentially leading to more favorable legal treatment for Trump. Additionally, the ruling requires deportees to file a specific type of lawsuit, known as a “habeas petition,” making it more challenging for them to obtain judicial orders protecting everyone in their situation, as noted by Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck. The Supreme Court’s decision is seen as overlooking the Trump administration’s systematic use of the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations.
In another case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump regarding the firing of 16,000 federal workers, citing a technicality that the nonprofits challenging Trump’s actions did not have the necessary legal standing. The Court stressed the importance of legal details in determining the validity of lawsuits and the limitations on addressing potential illegality.
These decisions have highlighted the strained relationship between the Trump administration and the judiciary. Trump’s public criticism of judges, including calls for impeachment, prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to defend the judiciary’s independence. Trump has also expressed frustration over court orders impeding his policies, urging the Supreme Court to intervene.
Despite these challenges, Trump remains optimistic about upholding the rule of law in the country, particularly in securing borders and protecting families. The recent developments have underscored the importance of legal processes and the role of the judiciary in upholding justice in America.
Friend or foe to Trump 2.0?
