What this term says about where the Supreme Court is headed
11:26 Share

This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. On Friday, President Trump hailed a series of rulings, the final decisions of the Supreme Court's term, as victories for his administration. In recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president. In one of the most

high-profile cases of this term, the High Court curbed the power of federal judges from lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions to block a president from enacting executive orders and other policies. We can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis. That decision is closely intertwined with Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship. But the court did not rule on the merits of that case.

After the decision, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, one of the lawyers representing the states suing the Trump administration, expressed her dismay. We are deeply disappointed that the court did not decide today that a nationwide injunction is warranted so that no matter where in the United States a baby is born, that baby will continue to be a citizen. She and other state attorneys general admitted that the court's ruling on nationwide injunctions was a serious blow, but vowed to continue fighting for birthright citizenship.

Consider this. A number of Supreme Court decisions handed down this term have expanded the power of the presidency while limiting the power of the courts. So how has this term changed the relationship of the judicial and the executive branches? From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow.

This message comes from Rinse, who asks, Who does your laundry? Simplify your life by having Rinse do it for you. With one-touch in-app scheduling, pickup and delivery are effortless. Your clothes come back fresh, folded, and ready to wear. Handled by laundry experts who get every detail right. Rinse makes laundry and dry cleaning the easiest part of your week. Sign up at Rinse.com and save $20 on your first order.

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Fisher Investments. SVP Judy Abrams shares how their fiduciary duty comes to life while helping clients plan for retirement. Fisher Investments is a fiduciary, and I think one of the very important roles we have here as a fiduciary is to help expand people's thinking about what this money is needed to do for them. Learn more at fisherinvestments.com. Investing in securities involves the risk of loss.

This message comes from Progressive Insurance and the Name Your Price tool. It helps you find car insurance options in your budget. Try it today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. It's Consider This from NPR. The Supreme Court's term is now over, and once again the executive branch is emerging from the term more powerful.

So what do we make of the court's rulings and how far do they exactly go? Here to answer those questions is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Storr. Greg, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me, Scott. Let's start with this birthright citizenship case. This is complicated because it involves this core question of who is a U.S. citizen, but it was actually fundamentally about whether or not federal judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. What did the court say about each of those issues?

Well, first of all, you're right that it wasn't about the legality of Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship.

It was all about the power of federal judges and what they can do when they decide that something an administration or any other government entity is doing is illegal. And the Supreme Court said the thing that they've been doing a lot, which is issuing nationwide injunctions, maybe a single person or a single group sues and a judge blocks a policy nationwide, they can't do that anymore. That is beyond the power of the federal judiciary. That has been such...

A key feature of our politics for more than a decade now, you go back to the Obama administration, a president tries to do something, somebody sues, it's held up. What does this ruling mean going forward for those challenges that we've become so accustomed to? Unquestionably, it will make it more difficult.

But the court did leave open some other avenues, and we'll have to see how broad those avenues are. One of them is that people can bring class actions. And you have to go through some more hoops. It's not automatic. But if you can file a lawsuit – and people may try to do that in birthright citizenship. Actually, they've already tried to do that in birthright citizenship to say, hey, we're filing on behalf of everybody who's like us across the country or maybe just in the state or something like that.

Judge, can you give us an order blocking the policy as to that class? That's at least still a theoretical avenue for them. But this topic is such an extreme example of the questions that this raises, right? Because this creates this patchwork approach of if you're part of the initial challenge, it applies to you. It doesn't apply to other people. Right.

I mean, what does that mean for people born in the United States to people who aren't here legally? Are you a citizen in one state or not a citizen in another state at the moment? Not at the moment. It is a possible outcome of this. So this is a very complicated thing. And so that's part of the reason why you don't want to jump to too many conclusions. There's also this issue that some states have sued. And so I think that's what you were alluding to that

In the state of New Jersey, for example, it may be we end up in a world where if you're born in New Jersey, a baby is a citizen. But if born in a state that's not part of the suit, they're not a citizen. But we're not there yet. And these are issues that the lower courts are going to have to work out.

These injunctions against the Trump administration have been a major part of the news cycle this year. What happens to all of the ones that had already been issued across a wide range of things that Trump is trying to do? Well, the president said that they are going to try to block a lot of these nationwide injunctions.

I want to come back to these big questions about power. But first, I do want to talk about one other ruling at the end of the term. And I think it's going to take a while to work out.

This came from a group of parents in Maryland suing to opt to get their children out of lessons that included books with LGBTQ characters. The court handed them a victory yesterday. What are the implications for parents and for schools from that ruling? Well, it's certainly a significant decision. It's one that said that because parents have a right to continue

the religious upbringing of their children, that they constitutionally have to have a right to get notice and to opt out of lessons if it violates their religious beliefs. It's going to make it harder for schools to incorporate some things into the classroom for sure, because if parents have a right to opt out of things, then

Anytime they do something that maybe bumps up against religious views, there is the risk that it will be much harder to present that lesson in class and they'll have to jump through some big hoops. And the dissenters in that ruling certainly said that this is a huge problem for public education. The conservative supermajority on the court is a huge storyline for several years now. What to you was most interesting, most surprising about how those six Republican appointed judges voted this year?

Certainly the birthright citizenship case was a surprise in that I think a lot of people on both sides of this issue think that even if you think there's a problem with nationwide injunctions, this was a rough case to test it on because this is an order that – an executive order from the Trump administration that clearly goes against what most people have thought is the understanding of the Constitution for the past 150-plus years. Mm-hmm.

The fact that the majority chose that case to raise this issue and thereby giving Donald Trump what seems to be a pretty significant win was certainly noteworthy. And then just more generally, looking at the way the six Republican appointed justices were pretty much all in alignment on the biggest cases as we headed to the end of the term was very striking.

What were your main takeaways from how Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled this year? She, of course, authored the opinion that we've been mostly talking about in this conversation, but she's also been a justice that a lot of people have been really trying to scrutinize this year. Yeah, there were certainly times earlier in the term where she aligned herself with the liberal justices, the three Democratic appointees.

And there was a lot of talk of Amy Coney Barrett not so much being a moderate or not so much being a swing vote but being somebody who's a little more restrained in what she wants to do than some of her conservative colleagues. But in all the other big cases, pretty much all the big ones that we might talk about are ones where she joined her fellow conservatives.

You know, people and institutions don't usually willingly hand over power. But I'm thinking about this ruling kind of really scaling back the federal court's ability or at least lower court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions and last year's ruling giving big swaths of immunity to sitting executives.

Do you see a connection between the two of them and what the six justices in the majority see as the proper balance between the federal courts and the executive branch? Well, certainly it's a court that believes in a strong executive in a whole lot of ways.

This birthright citizenship decision does restrict the power of lower court judges. It doesn't restrict the Supreme Court's power, however. And in a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh made that very clear that what this means is that probably some of these issues are going to get to us more quickly and we're going to be the ones who have to decide something. So it is a court that wants to restrain the judiciary in some respects. But ultimately, it's reserving a pretty fair amount of power for itself.

What remaining big questions do you have? Now the term has ended. A lot of the big rulings that you've been waiting for are out there to start kind of processing. What are the questions in your mind right now? So one big thing that didn't get a whole lot of attention on Friday was a non-ruling. It's a case involving the Voting Rights Act and a Louisiana congressional map that drew a second majority black district. Now for decades,

The courts have construed the 1965 Voting Rights Act as saying essentially if there's a way to draw a majority black, majority Hispanic district so that those voters can elect the candidate of their choice, there's a pretty good chance you're going to have to do that. And by – in this case that they were considering, the issues before them were kind of technical and narrow.

And the court said, we're not going to decide that right now. Instead, we're going to hear arguments again in the fall. And they didn't say what they're going to consider, but several of the conservative justices have suggested what they are interested in doing is considering whether this whole thing is still constitutional, namely the notion of drawing districts so that black and Hispanic voters have a right to vote.

have a chance to elect the candidates of their choice. And that would throw out decades of practice and would certainly upend the makeup of our legislatures. And it's right that that is a question that Chief Justice Roberts has repeatedly been asking in decisions and opinions over many years now at this point. It's certainly an interest of his, very much so. He does not like racial classifications. He's made very clear he sees the Constitution as

being colorblind. And some other justices like Brett Kavanaugh have suggested that they look at the Voting Rights Act as something that maybe was constitutional originally, but maybe has sort of outlived its time and that maybe it no longer meets the current needs of society, that the problem that it was designed to address is no longer there. That is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Storr. Greg, thanks so much for coming in. My pleasure.

This episode was produced by Avery Keatley. It was edited by Elizabeth Johnson. Our executive producer is Sammy Gannigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow.

This message comes from Lisa. Lisa has several different mattress models to choose from, each designed for specific sleep positions and feel preferences. And using the highest quality materials, they meticulously design and assemble their mattresses in America for exceptional comfort and support. Visit Lisa.com for 30% off mattresses and a free sleep bundle, plus get an extra $50 off with promo code NPR. That's L-E-E-S-A.com, promo code NPR.

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Enbridge. Enbridge is investing in infrastructure projects with the goal of keeping energy reliable, affordable, and dependable. Because Enbridge believes the energy future depends on secure and affordable energy from modernized infrastructure. By investing in infrastructure and securing energy for families and businesses, Enbridge works to build a stronger, more resilient economy. Learn more at Enbridge.com.

Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.