WASHINGTON, D.C.
The unprecedented expansion of US presidential powers under Donald Trump will come under intense scrutiny as the Supreme Court begins its fall term on Monday. Legal experts and civil rights advocates are watching closely to see if the conservative-dominated bench, which includes three of Trump’s own appointees, will act as a constitutional guardrail.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, articulated the key concern: “The crucial question will be whether it serves as a check on President Trump or just a rubber stamp approving his actions.”
Historically, the Republican leader has notched up a series of legal victories from the high court since his return to office, allowing major actions like the mass firing of federal workers, the dismissal of independent agency members, the withholding of Congressional funds, and the use of racial profiling in his sweeping immigration crackdown.
Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted the court’s discernible pattern. “You’ve seen the court go out of its way, really bend over backwards, in order to green-light Trump administration positions,” she said.
The ‘Shadow Docket’ and a Billion-Dollar Tariff Case
Many of these decisions have been delivered via the controversial emergency, or “shadow,” docket, where the court issues orders with little briefing, no oral arguments, and minimal explanation. Samuel Bray, a University of Chicago law professor, labelled it the “legal equivalent of fast food,” a practice condemned by the court’s three liberal justices. Chemerinsky noted that the six conservative justices on the shadow docket have “repeatedly and without exception… voted to reverse lower court decisions that had initially found Trump’s actions to be unconstitutional.”
The major legal battle this term, however, involves Trump’s imposition of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on imports. Lower courts have ruled he did not have the statutory authority for these sweeping measures. This high-stakes case, which will receive full arguments on November 5, involves a challenge to Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to bypass Congress, claiming the trade deficit constituted a national emergency.
Curtis Bradley, another University of Chicago law professor, warned of the financial fallout: “At least hundreds of billions of dollars or more are at stake and they may need to refund those billions of dollars if they lose in the Supreme Court.” Further cases challenging presidential authority, specifically Trump’s bid to fire members of the independent Federal Trade Commission and a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, are scheduled for December and January.
Voting Rights, Transgender Athletes, and Religious Freedom
On October 15, the court will hear a crucial voting rights case. The challenge, brought by “non-African American” voters, contests the creation of a second Black majority congressional district in Louisiana, arguing it is the result of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could severely weaken a key section of the Voting Rights Act that allows for the creation of majority-minority districts to remedy past racial discrimination. “The stakes are incredibly high,” said the ACLU’s Sophia Lin Lakin. “The outcome will not only determine the next steps for Louisiana’s congressional map, but may also shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide.”
The court will also hear challenges to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports.
Finally, a religious freedom case slated for November 10 has uniquely united legal advocates across the political spectrum. The petitioner, Damon Landor, is a devout Rastafarian who is seeking permission to sue individual Louisiana prison officials for monetary damages after his knee-length dreadlocks were forcibly shorn while he was incarcerated. While the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to approve damages actions against individual government officials, the current right-leaning court has shown a strong tendency to side with plaintiffs in cases involving religious liberty.
