The Supreme Court hasn’t yet determined all the cases it will hear regarding legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive actions.
But oral arguments have been scheduled for several cases involving trade and separation of powers when it comes to so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. Meanwhile, a decision on a fast-tracked “emergency docket” case is still pending.
Here’s a look at some of what to expect in the coming weeks from the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s executive actions.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the first week of November on Trump’s tariffs in the case of Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump.
Two private companies sued in May after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of sweeping tariffs on foreign goods.
It’s an issue that has divided the Right.
Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era.
The high court in September agreed to hear the case after lower courts ruled Trump exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, Congress imposes tariffs.
The question of “gender identity” on passports is on the Supreme Court’s fast-tracked emergency docket. As a result, a partial ruling could come soon.
Litigants in the case of Trump v. Orr, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to allow passports to reflect the gender identity of someone’s choice, meaning a passport for a male could list him as a female, or vice versa.
The seven plaintiffs identified themselves as “transgender” and “nonbinary” and sued to challenge a Trump executive order that stated sex designation on U.S. passports would be based on “immutable biological factors at conception.”
Trump’s order more broadly stated there are two sexes determined by biological factors, which are male and female. Among other things, the order directed the State Department to apply this to documents such as passports.
That reversed a previous policy that allowed passport holders to check “M” for male, “F” for female, and “X” for something else. This returns the form to “M” and “F” only.
In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick for the District of Massachusetts gave the plaintiffs a partial victory for their motion on a preliminary injunction to stop the order from taking effect.
On Sept. 19, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse the injunction from the district court.
Lower courts blocked Trump’s executive order in January directing federal agencies to limit recognition of so-called birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is the view that anyone born in the United States, even a child of illegal immigrants, is automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
On Sept. 26, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the merits in a birthright citizenship case, Trump v. State of Washington. This matter is not yet officially set for arguments with a hearing date.
Under the order, agencies would not recognize citizenship for U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen.
Federal judges in New Hampshire and Washington state issued injunctions against enforcing Trump’s order.
In December, the high court will hear arguments regarding supposedly “independent” commissions within the executive branch in the case of Trump v. Slaughter.
Independent agencies include boards and commissions with members appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents that in theory operate without political concerns.
The outcome could be sweeping, as the long-standing 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is known as one of the key cases empowering the bureaucracy. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled during the New Deal era that Congress can enact laws limiting the power of the president to fire executive officials of an independent agency.
Trump has attempted to fire a number of members of boards and commissions, including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and National Transportation Safety Board.
At issue is the separation of powers and whether an elected president can remove unelected executive branch officials.
This specific case regards Trump’s ouster of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The Humphrey’s Executor case revolved around President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 prohibited the president from firing a commissioner for any reason other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Humphrey sued, but died before the case was decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, it was called “Humphrey’s Executor.” The high court held in the 1935 case that Congress can enact laws limiting a president’s ability to remove members of the boards and commissions.
The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence.
Last week, in an emergency docket ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook could keep her job—for now, at least—after Trump attempted to oust her.
But the high court set oral arguments for Jan. 26 in the case of Trump v. Cook.
The case has potentially far-reaching consequences for the future of the Federal Reserve.
The question in the case is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or whether the organization created in 1913 is independent.
Members of the board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president has sought to remove a board member.
Critics of the firing say it jeopardizes the independence of the Fed. Supporters of the move have countered that government boards and commissions should be more accountable to elected officials.
Trump justified the removal based on alleged misstatements Cook made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing.
Cook contested the firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act and that the act includes due process. The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the Board of Governors. The administration contends the allegations about mortgage statements meet the “for cause” standard.
Trump largely ran on immigration and trade policies. Meaning, his ability to thwart the federal bureaucracy that undermined his first term could be critical to how he fares in a second term. So, what the high court decides in these Trump administration cases are likely to be very consequential.
Related posts:
- Justice Department Files Complaint Over Judge’s Out-of-Court Statements
- After Legal Setback, What’s Next for Trump’s Effort to Deport Illegal Alien Gang Members?
- Court Won’t Let Trump Require Biological Sex on Passports