Overview of How the Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Is Reshaping Executive Power
This episode of The Political Scene from The New Yorker features Tyler Foggatt and legal reporter Ruth Marcus discussing the Supreme Court’s latest term and what it reveals about the court’s conservative supermajority. The central takeaway: the court is not simply “pro-Trump” — it is broadly pro-executive power, willing to rein in Trump on his most extreme moves while still expanding presidential authority in ways that could affect future presidents as well.
Key Takeaways
- The court gave Trump a mixed but overall favorable term.
- It rejected Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but upheld multiple immigration and executive-power wins.
- The justices appear especially deferential on issues involving:
- immigration
- foreign policy
- agency control
- Marcus argues the court is better understood as “executive-loving” rather than Trump-loving.
- The term underscored how the court’s 6-justice conservative bloc has become a durable force shaping national policy.
Immigration Rulings
Asylum restrictions and “metering”
The court upheld a stricter asylum policy that limited access at the border. Marcus explains that the dispute turned on the meaning of arriving “in” the United States versus arriving “at” the border.
- The majority focused narrowly on statutory wording.
- The dissent argued that this interpretation defeats the purpose of asylum law.
- Marcus says the ruling ignores the humanitarian history behind asylum protections, including the U.S. failure to admit refugees fleeing Nazi persecution.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
The court also upheld the revocation of TPS for:
- about 350,000 Haitian refugees
- about 6,100 Syrian refugees
Marcus explains that TPS was designed as a temporary humanitarian status for people from countries facing disaster or war. The administration’s revocation process was criticized as minimal and politically motivated, but the court treated the matter as largely unreviewable.
Broader impact
- More than one million people could be vulnerable because the ruling suggests TPS can be ended with very limited judicial review.
- Marcus notes the real-world consequences are enormous, especially for people who have built lives, families, and careers in the U.S.
Racial animus concerns
The justices declined to credit claims that Trump’s comments about Haitians reflected racial animus, despite language about “shithole countries” and other racist rhetoric.
- The majority said it could not clearly conclude the decision was racially motivated.
- The dissenters saw the comments as obvious evidence of bias.
- Marcus suggests the court was unwilling to look too closely at intent when the policy outcome aligned with conservative goals.
Birthright Citizenship: The Major Loss for Trump
The biggest headline of the term was the court’s rejection of Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship.
Why it mattered
Marcus says she was not surprised the court rejected the order. Birthright citizenship is deeply rooted in:
- English common law
- the 14th Amendment
- the precedent of Wong Kim Ark
She emphasizes that the court’s ruling preserved a long-settled constitutional understanding: with only narrow exceptions, if you are born in the U.S., you are a citizen.
Why the decision still caused alarm
Even though Trump lost, four justices produced reasoning that Marcus found unsettling.
- Some dissents treated the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as far more limited than historical practice suggests.
- Justice Alito’s dissent, in particular, was described as sounding more like an immigration-policy argument than a constitutional one.
- The close vote revealed how much skepticism still exists on the right toward birthright citizenship.
Future implications
Marcus says this issue is unlikely to disappear politically:
- Republicans may keep targeting birthright citizenship as a campaign issue.
- The next conservative vacancy on the Court could turn this into a major litmus-test issue.
- While some “edge cases” like birth tourism might be regulated, the core principle of birthright citizenship remains firmly protected for now.
Executive Power and the “Unitary Executive”
The Humphrey’s Executor case
One of the most consequential rulings involved Trump’s power to fire leaders of independent agencies.
Marcus traces the issue back to Humphrey’s Executor, the 1930s precedent that limited presidential power to remove certain independent agency heads, such as FTC commissioners, except for cause.
What the court did
By narrowing or overruling that precedent, the court moved further toward the theory of the unitary executive:
- the president should have greater control over independent agencies
- agency independence is viewed by conservatives as an unconstitutional limit on presidential authority
Marcus’s view
She sees this as a meaningful expansion of presidential power, but not yet the end of the administrative state:
- It could affect principal officers at independent agencies.
- It does not necessarily mean the entire civil service is now at risk.
- Still, it marks a major step toward centralized executive control.
Transgender Athletes
The court also ruled on transgender athletes, allowing states to ban transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ and women’s teams.
What the ruling did
- It upheld state authority to impose bans.
- It did not impose a nationwide ban.
What may come next
Marcus says the next fight is likely to be whether states must ban trans athletes, not whether they may do so.
- That question is already percolating in lower courts.
- A future Supreme Court case could push the issue even further against trans rights.
What This Term Says About the Court
A court more conservative than many expected
Marcus says the term showed just how solid the conservative majority is now, especially after Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation.
- There were many pure 6–3 ideological splits.
- The court often ruled in ways that were highly predictable based on appointer identity.
- That, she says, is unhealthy for the legitimacy and functioning of the judiciary.
Not all conservatives are identical
The episode also highlights internal differences among the conservative justices.
Amy Coney Barrett
Marcus says Barrett has earned intense criticism from MAGA-aligned figures, but she is not a swing justice in the old Anthony Kennedy sense.
- She is more intellectually honest than some of her conservative peers.
- She sometimes parts ways with the right, but not enough to be a true moderating force.
- Some attacks on her appear rooted in misogyny as much as ideology.
Chief Justice Roberts and occasional crossovers
Marcus notes that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh sometimes join the liberals or break from the conservative bloc, but those moments are rare and usually limited.
The liberal justices’ role
Marcus praises the liberal justices — especially Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson — for doing two things at once:
- writing powerful dissents that preserve arguments for history
- trying, where possible, to persuade or peel off a conservative vote
She singles out Justice Kagan as especially skilled in this balancing act.
Bottom Line
The episode’s main message is that the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is not simply acting as Trump’s ally. Instead, it is advancing a broader judicial project to strengthen presidential authority, weaken regulatory independence, and narrow certain protections — while still drawing a line when Trump goes too far, as with birthright citizenship.
Marcus’s overall assessment is sobering:
- the court is highly conservative
- it is increasingly willing to expand executive power
- and it is likely to shape American government for years, regardless of which president is in office
Additional Context
The episode also briefly touches on:
- the possibility of future Supreme Court retirements
- speculation about whether Trump could appoint another justice
- the likelihood that this court’s current structure will remain stable through much or all of Trump’s term