With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump’s Power Fades

The New York Times ^ | June 28, 2025, 5:03 a.m. ET | Charlie Savage

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The court tied the hands of judges at a time when Congress has been cowed and internal executive branch constraints have been steamrolled.

The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power.

The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers.

But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies.

The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind.

Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy.

But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle...

[sergeantdave]

“Now the Dems are gonna sue “class action” so the judges can make blanket injunctions because plaintiffs...”

Class action suits in 94 different federal district courts? That sounds ridiculous. The logistics of filing the same lawsuit simultaneously in 94 courts would be insurmountable.

Suppose 24 courts agree with the plaintiffs and 24 don’t. Now what? What about the 45 courts that haven’t made a ruling?

Maybe you know something I don’t. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

[Luircin]

Could this come back to bite us if a Rat gets elected in 2028?

***

No. Because they already did it and worse.

[sopo]

I guess they’re sitting down , right?

[Old West Conservative]

A tie going into overtime between the Freeper TDS crazies and the NYT

[larrytown]

It’s a good thwarting.

[mewzilla]

Check out the author. And the author’s wife.

[eastexsteve]

..the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy.

Mr. Savage, I don't know what country you came from, but "American-style democracy" doesn't utilize emperors who dictate from the judicial bench.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[Jim Noble]

“ There must be a way to legally destroy that perfidious strategy.”

You cannot defeat revolution within the limits of existing law.