Here’s how Marcia Brown starts her article, “The Supreme Court’s recent decisions could undo big Biden accomplishments”:

President Joe Biden executed one of the most sweeping progressive agendas on labor, climate change and “corporate greed” in recent decades — only to see the Supreme Court lay it so bare that a Kamala Harris victory may not protect large chunks of it.

A suite of Supreme Court rulings this summer freed up federal judges to freeze many regulations the president once campaigned on or enacted to get around a deeply divided Congress. In Texas, a federal judge blocked Biden’s ban on noncompete agreements for workers, and a judge in Mississippi stopped his discrimination protections in health care for transgender people. And an Ohio-based appeals court temporarily halted a policy preventing internet companies from throttling service.

Here’s how I’d have written it:

Even more than previous presidents, President Biden has tried to implement much of his agenda without congressional approval — an approach that is running into more and more legal trouble.

A suite of Supreme Court rulings this summer placed limits on the power of agencies to interpret the laws that govern them. In Texas, a federal judge blocked Biden’s ban on noncompete agreements for workers, and a judge in Mississippi stopped him from ordering hospitals and insurers to participate in gender-transition surgeries. And an Ohio-based appeals court — by a 3–0 vote, including appointees of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Biden himself — unanimously halted his rewriting of regulations of internet companies.

And for the headline, “Courts keep ruling Biden has overstepped his authority” would do the job well.