Overview of No, The Supreme Court Didn’t Make Trump Unilaterally More Powerful
This episode of Left, Right & Center examines the Supreme Court’s latest term and pushes back on the idea that the Court simply handed Donald Trump unchecked executive power. Hosts David Green, Mo Alethi, and Sarah Isger break down several major rulings—on birthright citizenship, tariffs, independent agencies, campaign finance, and the Voting Rights Act—and argue that the term is better understood as a mix of limits on presidential power, shifts in administrative law, and a deeper fight over how the Constitution’s 14th Amendment should be interpreted.
Supreme Court Term: Executive Power and Congressional Authority
The central question of the episode is whether the Court has dramatically expanded presidential power. The panel’s answer: not so simply.
Where the Court restrained the president
- The Court pushed back on executive actions in areas like:
- Birthright citizenship
- Tariffs
- Nationalizing the federal guard
- Alien Enemies Act-related actions
- The recurring theme in these decisions: the president cannot govern by executive order alone when Congress has not clearly authorized the action.
Where the Court expanded presidential authority
- In the Slaughter case, the Court weakened the idea of truly independent agencies by allowing presidents to remove certain agency heads more freely.
- Sarah argued this is legally consistent with the Constitution’s structure, while Mo emphasized that it could have major long-term consequences for the autonomy of federal agencies.
Birthright Citizenship: A Narrow Door Remains Open
The Court rejected Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, but the discussion made clear that the issue may not be completely settled forever.
Key point
- Six justices rejected the executive order.
- Four justices appeared open to some future congressional definition that could narrow birthright citizenship in limited circumstances.
Why it matters
- The panel stressed that the case is not an immediate threat to birthright citizenship for most people.
- But it does suggest the Court has left open a small legal path for future challenges, especially if Congress acts.
The Bigger 14th Amendment Fight
A major part of the conversation focused on how the Court is wrestling with the 14th Amendment across multiple cases.
Two competing interpretations
- Colorblind Constitution view: Government should not use race at all, even for remedial purposes.
- Remedial view: Government may need to consider race to address the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Why this matters across cases
The same deeper constitutional conflict shows up in:
- Birthright citizenship
- Affirmative action
- Voting Rights Act cases
- Other race-related rulings
Sarah framed this as the Court’s long-running philosophical battle over whether the 14th Amendment represents a “second founding” that resets the constitutional order.
Campaign Finance: More Party Power, Less Super PAC Dependence
The Court also ruled on campaign finance, lifting restrictions on how much parties can coordinate spending with federal candidates.
The arguments
- Republicans argued the old rules violated First Amendment rights.
- Democrats warned the ruling could invite corruption.
The panel’s take
- Sarah argued the ruling is legally sound because the anti-corruption rules already include contribution limits and anti-circumvention protections.
- Mo said the practical result could actually be healthier if it strengthens parties and reduces reliance on dark-money super PACs.
Why it could matter
- Parties may regain some of their ability to:
- coordinate strategy
- share polling and messaging
- build long-term political infrastructure
- The outcome depends heavily on transparency and disclosure.
What This Term Says About the Court
The episode’s broader takeaway is that this Supreme Court term does not fit into a simple “pro-Trump, pro-executive power” narrative.
Key trends discussed
- The percentage of ideological 6-3 decisions rose sharply compared with last term.
- But the justices were also less monolithic than before:
- The conservative bloc was less unified
- Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett did not always move together
- Mo and Sarah agreed that the Court’s decisions are mixed and often better understood as part of a broader constitutional and institutional shift, not a one-sided power grab.
Final Takeaways
- The Court did not give Trump unlimited power.
- It did continue limiting presidents who act without clear congressional authorization.
- It did weaken some structural protections around independent agencies.
- It is still deeply engaged in a long-running dispute over the 14th Amendment and race-conscious law.
- The Court’s message to Congress is consistent: do your job and pass clearer laws.
Closing Notes
The episode ends with lighter reflections for the holiday weekend, including:
- Mo’s hope that Americans can still celebrate the country beyond partisan politics
- Sarah’s reading from the Declaration of Independence
- A nod to the U.S. men’s national team as a source of optimism and national pride
Overall, the conversation presents the Court as complicated, internally divided, and still shaping the future boundaries between Congress, the presidency, and the Constitution.