A brief look at what the SC will be dealing with in the upcoming term--the biggest one, IMHO, is whether they are actually going to validate the crazy "Unitary executive" notion, a thing so stupid and so unAmerican and so NOT what the Constitution says that it is likely that this stupid, unAmerican SC might actually do it.
A once-in-a-century term
The Supreme Court begins its new term today, and Washington observers agree on one thing: A lot is at stake.
Justices are set to consider issues at the heart of President Trump’s economic agenda, including tariffs and authority over independent agencies — notably the Fed. And while the court has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, legal experts aren’t entirely sure which way justices will go.
On tariffs: The court is scheduled to hear arguments next month over the constitutionality of the administration’s extensive tariffs, which were imposed via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump officials have said overturning the levies risked economic chaos; the U.S. has raised about $192 billion in revenue from customs, including the duties, through Oct. 2.
The businesses that brought the challenge to Trump’s tariffs, as well as some conservative and libertarian legal scholars, say the tariffs are illegal. (While the act the administration is citing has been used to apply sanctions and embargoes, it doesn’t mention tariffs.)
Lower courts have ruled against the White House, and trade and legal experts surveyed by JPMorgan Chase recently predicted the Supreme Court will follow suit. That said, Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, has said the administration will continue to rely on tariffs as a key economic tool, even if it has to rely on other legal justifications to do so.
On the Fed and independent agencies: In December, justices are set to consider the White House’s power over independent federal agencies. Via emergency applications, the Supreme Court has already allowed the administration to fire, for now, officials from regulators like the F.T.C. Noah Feldman of Bloomberg Opinion writes that the court’s conclusion is preordained, with serious consequences for federal regulation.
But the justices have also suggested that the Fed is a slightly different animal, and so far have blocked Trump’s ability to fire Lisa Cook as a governor of the central bank over accusations of mortgage fraud. The court will hear arguments over the matter in January — with potentially huge implications for Fed independence, the U.S. economy and fiscal policy.
What else is on the docket: issues including whether the administration can unilaterally end birthright citizenship or strip 300,000 Venezuelan migrants of deportation protections; as well as the constitutionality of a Colorado law counseling minors to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What experts are saying about the significance of this term:
- “It’s hard to imagine bigger tests of presidential power than these potentially once-in-a-century separation-of-powers battles,” Deepak Gupta, a lawyer who frequently argues cases before the justices, told The Times.
- “It looks to be shaping up as a blockbuster political law term, both in the case of elections, regulation, redistricting and voter rights, and campaign finance,” Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Washington Post.
|
|
