Supreme Court Strips Away Another Check on Presidential Power

Supreme Court Removes Key Check on Presidential Power

Photo by Joshua Woods on Unsplash

The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate universal injunctions has effectively removed one of the last meaningful constraints on executive authority. This ruling comes at a critical moment when other traditional checks and balances have already been weakened or abandoned entirely.

On Friday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to bar federal judges from issuing universal injunctions that can block government actions nationwide. The decision allows President Trump's controversial birthright citizenship order to take effect in states that haven't challenged it—even though every court reviewing the directive has declared it unconstitutional.

This ruling represents more than just a procedural change in how courts operate. It marks another significant step in the erosion of institutional safeguards that have historically prevented the concentration of unchecked power in the executive branch.

The End of Swift Judicial Intervention

Universal injunctions served as one of the few remaining tools that could quickly halt potentially illegal government actions while legal challenges played out in court. Without this mechanism, harmful policies can remain in effect for months or years before being fully adjudicated.

The practical consequences are already visible. Under the new rules, infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors could be denied citizenship documentation like Social Security numbers in the 28 states that haven't challenged Trump's order. Individual parents would need to file their own lawsuits—a costly and time-consuming process that most cannot afford.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench in a rare display of opposition, warned of the broader implications: "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship."

The timing of this decision is particularly significant. The judicial process moves slowly, often taking years to reach final resolution. Actions that have already occurred—such as shutting down agencies, deporting individuals, or implementing discriminatory policies—can be extremely difficult to reverse even after courts rule them illegal.

A Pattern of Weakening Institutional Constraints

The Supreme Court's elimination of universal injunctions follows a disturbing pattern of decisions that have systematically strengthened executive power while weakening oversight mechanisms.

Presidential Immunity Expansion

Last year, the same 6-3 conservative majority granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts as president. Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling went further, establishing that presidents have absolute immunity for anything involving the Justice Department and federal law enforcement.

This decision has emboldened Trump to formally order investigations into political opponents, shattering post-Watergate norms of Justice Department independence. What once required informal pressure and plausible deniability can now be done through direct presidential orders.

Erosion of Independent Agencies

The conservative majority has also signaled its willingness to overturn precedents that allow Congress to establish independent agencies run by commissioners who cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. Trump has already begun firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms expired, with the Court's apparent blessing.

These agencies were specifically designed to operate with some independence from direct presidential control, handling everything from financial regulation to communications policy. Their erosion concentrates even more regulatory power within the executive branch.