WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s harsh criticism could still ring in the ears of Supreme Court justices when they return to the bench for another nine-month term next week.
In the final months of his previous term and during the summer recess, the conservative-majority court, which includes three Trump appointees, ruled against Trump on some of the issues he cares about most.
The justices blocked his sweeping tariffs, ended his plan to restrict citizenship rights, stopped him from firing a Federal Reserve member and blocked his plan to exercise control over mail-in ballots ahead of this fall’s election.
The Supreme Court has “failed our country,” Trump said in a Truth Social article after the mail-in voting ruling. The justices he appointed — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — are “a shell of themselves,” he added. The president made similar statements in a Time magazine interview published Thursday, saying, “I gave them the job of their lives, and they often vote against me.” »
The president still desperately needs the justices’ votes when key parts of his agenda come before the court in the coming months, particularly multiple cases stemming from his hardline immigration crackdown.
The court could also weigh in on his administration’s ban on transgender people in the military, which the justices in a previous ruling allowed to go into effect. Another appeal is pending as part of Trump’s effort to overturn a defamation verdict against him in a case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual abuse. The court in June rejected a previous appeal by Trump over a separate case that Carroll won.
Trump’s complaints about the court obscure the fact that the administration has scored many victories, particularly in emergency cases that reach the court via what is colloquially called the “shadow docket.”
The court’s interim rulings have allowed the administration to move forward with immigration enforcement, restructuring the federal government and even building a White House ballroom in emergency decisions while the litigation continues.
Lauren Bis, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that, overall, “the administration’s policies have always been considered legal.”
“President Trump will not stop implementing the America First agenda he was elected to deliver,” she added.
The court resumes oral arguments Monday as it officially opens the new session, which runs through June, by hearing a major case on whether cities and counties can sue oil companies for the impacts of climate change.
Those who regularly challenge Trump’s policies in court say their recent victories give them hope for this term, demonstrating that even though the court has a 6-3 conservative majority, it is not an automatic endorsement for the president.
“Even with this court, you can go too far over the line,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which has challenged Trump on several fronts. The judges would not, for example, allow “Trump to hijack mail-in voting,” he added.
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was also relieved by some of the court’s recent rulings.
“I think the Court has proven that it is prepared to stand up to the excesses of the Trump administration. And that gives us confidence for this term,” she said.
Two key elements of Trump’s immigration policy are already on the verge of review by the Supreme Court. In one, the justices will examine the administration’s continued efforts to deport immigrants to “third countries” to which they have no prior ties if they cannot be returned to their home countries. The Supreme Court has already allowed the policy to go ahead twice, suggesting the administration has a good chance of prevailing.
The other case involves the administration’s attempt to indefinitely detain thousands of people in deportation proceedings, a departure from previous administrations, which released those immigrants while their cases were adjudicated.
More Trump-related cases are expected to be added to the docket in time to go to trial by next summer, with several appeals already underway.
Among them is another potentially significant immigration case stemming from the Trump administration’s shutdown of asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border. Lower courts have ruled against the administration, although this policy currently remains in effect.
Robert Luther III, who served in the White House during Trump’s first term and is now a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, said that, as in the previous term, much of the focus will be on Trump’s broad interpretation of executive power.
“He has always championed an aggressive vision of executive power. The Court’s relationship with that vision continues to grow. He is winning some of these cases and he is losing others,” he added.
Although the court has been on its usual summer vacation since the end of June, judges have remained busy handling cases on the parallel docket. Such cases are generally handled expeditiously, without oral arguments or detailed written opinions.
The shadow docket has increasingly become a key part of the Court’s operations in recent years, with some rulings proving more far-reaching than those in the Court’s traditional docket, in which justices hear arguments and spend months deliberating before issuing lengthy rulings.
Over the summer, the Trump administration filed seven shadow requests on various issues. The court ruled in favor of Trump on four of them and against him once, while one was withdrawn and one is pending.
The administration’s highest-profile victory over the summer break allowed Trump to continue building a ballroom at the White House.
But his lone defeat over his executive order on mail-in voting was a significant one, earning him some of his sharpest criticism of judges to date.
Luther said the justices would likely be able to set aside the president’s colorful rhetoric.
“I think the judges know that the president is a politician,” he added. “I don’t think they take it personally.”
Gn headline
