Supreme Court Term Shows Divergent Rulings on Administration and Broader Issues

Why it matters locally: Across Vermont, the Supreme Court's decisions on issues such as the Second Amendment, immigration, and the authority of federal agencies could influence state-level policies and the lives of its residents. The ruling impacting the Voting Rights Act could also affect election procedures in the state.

---

Washington—The Supreme Court's latest term, which concluded recently, revealed distinct patterns in its decisions, according to legal observers. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, head of Davis Polk’s Supreme Court and appellate practice group, identified an "emerging theme" in the term's case results. Shanmugam stated that "on issues of . . . broader significance, the . . . ‘conservative’ side is typically winning. On issues that are more specific to this administration, the outcomes are sometimes different." In cases with broader societal implications, the Court issued several rulings. It decided against LGBTQ advocates in cases concerning conversion therapy and transgender athletes. The Court upheld Second Amendment claims in two separate cases. It also issued a ruling impacting the Voting Rights Act and invalidated a provision of federal campaign finance law. Additionally, the Court struck down statutory restrictions on the president’s authority to remove the leaders of nearly all independent federal agencies. Regarding administration-specific issues, the Court rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to impose broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Court used statutory interpretation and the major questions doctrine in its decision. Shanmugam noted that this outcome aligned with his observation, as Trump's tariff policies differed from traditional conservative views on free trade. The Court also ruled on several other administration-specific cases. It rejected the administration's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Four of the six Republican-appointed justices believed the Trump executive order limiting birthright citizenship had constitutional validity in some applications. The Court allowed the president broad power to end Temporary Protected Status and interpreted a federal statute to permit the administration to block asylum seekers. These decisions on immigration issues were decided by a 6-3 margin. Another case, *Trump v. Cook*, related to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Court decided by a 5-4 vote, with two of the six conservative justices voting against Trump's attempt to remove a board member. Observers noted that traditional conservative views often support the independence of the central bank. However, the divided vote indicates varying perspectives on this matter. In *Trump v. United States* (2024), the Court granted sitting and former presidents immunity against criminal prosecution for acts within the "outer perimeter" of their official responsibilities. The Court stated concerns that potential criminal liability could prevent presidents from taking necessary actions. Another decision, *Trump v. Slaughter*, overruled the 1935 precedent of *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States*, invalidating good-cause removal protection for members of the Federal Trade Commission. This ruling aligned with the unitary executive theory, which conservative scholars have supported prior to Donald Trump's presidency. The Court had also narrowed *Humphrey's* in earlier rulings. The Court’s decision in *Mullin v. Doe*, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) case, noted the TPS statute precludes judicial review of non-constitutional claims. The majority rejected the argument that the decision to end TPS for Haitians was racially motivated. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent referenced statements made by the former president regarding Haiti. The majority opinion stated, "None of the cited statements by either the President or [former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem] was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications." Justice Samuel Alito authored the lead opinion. Lady Justice's blindfold symbolizes impartiality in the legal system, signifying that all individuals are equal before the law, without favor.