The Supreme Court stunningly shut its eyes again this week to Donald Trump legal steamroller, overruling a lower court that had held up tens of thousands of federal firings.
It was another in a series of “emergency” rulings with no reasoning or explanation, but one that vastly broadens Trump’s powers simply to ignore Congress. While technically “temporary” until the underlying case reaches the Supreme Court, the decision green-lights Trump’s campaign for massive government cuts on his word alone.
It is hard to conclude that the Court in effect is telling Trump once again that he is practically above the law and Constitution requiring that spending be controlled by Congress, not the White House.
Maybe it is because the Court backed itself into a legal corner. By ruling two weeks ago that lower court judges of the power cannot issue even temporary injunctions or stop orders to nationwide presidential policies, the legal logic apparently is that must apply to firings as well.
From the little reported by the judges in the 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court specified that it was not taking a position on the legality of the findings. Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she and liberal Elena Kagan had joined the majority decision because the administration had directed agencies to operate “consistent with applicable law.” Because the plans themselves were not before the court, there was no way to judge them, and that federal District Court Judge Susan Illston could still review the actions.
But Judge Illston already had said that the firings were “probably illegal” and that agencies once hollowed out could not perform tasks as assigned by Congress.
That means the firings will proceed and it will be months or more before those questions return to the Supreme Court.
This Court refuses to look at actual effects of its decisions.
Balance of Powers?
We must ask: what’s the purpose then of Congress at all? Why, for example, did we just go through an extraordinary political battle over a budget bill that gave Trump already wide authority to re-create spending values that favor tax cuts for the wealthy over health care.
Every one of the tens of thousands who will now be formally dismissed also will lose health care unless rehired in a private sector job, for example. That the court would approve mass firings just as we are seeing the effects of significant job reductions at the national weather service play out in Texas or the global effects of eliminating foreign aid workers is striking.
Over the last few years, this Supreme Court boxed in federal agency enforcement of environmental and health laws by arguing specifically that such actions had to be approved by Congress. What is different now, except for the replacement of Joe Biden with Donald Trump, who appointed three of these justices?
Where is the legal line for Trump? Is there any? This Supreme Court seems unwilling the enforce existing law over immigration, education, environment or tariffs.
Beyond a political victory for Trump, we wonder where the winners are here — certainly not the workers or the agencies involved, certainly not Congress, and certainly not people expecting professional expertise from their government or a fair shot before its top court.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF A FREE PRESS AND OUR NONPROFIT NEWSROOM
