Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power.
With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents.
The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration.
Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit.
The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021.
Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
The court also permitted to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions.
Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward.
The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said.
The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional.
"One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump betrayed the diplomatic effort, says Iranian FM
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed US President Donald Trump's declaration that their countries would re-engage in nuclear negotiations in the coming week. 'If our interests require a return to negotiations, we will consider it. But at this time, no agreement or promise has been made, and no talks have taken place.' Araghchi made the point that they were negotiating when Israel launched its June 13th unprovoked attack on Iran. Trump followed up last weekend by striking three Iranian nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs with the intention of finishing off Iran's nuclear programme. Araghchi accused Trump of betraying the diplomatic effort to resolve differences. While Trump claimed the US had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the sites had been seriously damaged but suggested that Iran should be able to enrich uranium "in a matter of months." According to CNN, the Trump administration could encourage Iran to resume talks by offering $20-30 billion to establish a civilian nuclear energy programme without Iranian enrichment of its own nuclear fuel. The finance, it is said, could be provided by the Gulf countries, naturally not the US. The administration would also ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign banks. While such a speculative deal has been deliberately leaked and widely reported, it is unlikely to materialise. It looks like "pie in the sky," as the saying goes. Tehran is unlikely to reject a return to talks, but Iran is still assessing its military, political, and diplomatic losses from Israel's 12-day war and US strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran has to lay down its own conditions and decide when the atmosphere is propitious before re-engaging. Iran has laid down two red lines: low level uranium enrichment must continue on Iranian soil and Iran will not discuss its ballistic missile programme which Iran argues is essential for self-defence. Trump seeks to cross these red lines by eliminating both domestic enrichment and missiles. Trust has not characterised Iranian-US relations since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over-threw Washington's ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in early 1979 and, radical "students" seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and held staff for 444 days. They were not freed until Ronald Regan had taken over the US presidency from Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, this gesture did not clear the way for the restoration of relations due to US rejectionism. The blow of losing the Shah, compounded by the humiliation of the embassy occupation made the US, particularly Congress, testy and unforgiving and easily influenced by domestic and Israeli anti-Iran hawks. Iranian popular trust in the US was undermined during the decades-long the rule of the shah who developed Iran's economy and carried out modernising social reforms but ruled with an iron fist. His tool was his intelligence agency Savak which allied with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. The shah put Iran firmly in the Western camp during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and adopted pro-Israel policies. Iranian resentment continues over the 1953 US-British coup against popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who nationalised the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Resentment intensified when in 1954, the shah reached a deal giving Western countries control of Iran's oil industry. He also allowed US companies to play a dominant role in trade and Iran's domestic markets. This was exploited by the Iranian opposition, especially Khomeini who mounted his "revolution" from exile in France. He returned to Tehran in early 1979 after the shah had fled to the US. After several years of turmoil, Khomeini installed the cleric-dominated model of governance A decade after the fall of Shah, Iran's President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) tried and failed to reconcile with the US and the West. He was followed by Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) who in 1999 launched his "Dialogue of Civilisations" which he hoped would achieve this end. One effort in this campaign was a Cyprus conference attended by US scholars, policy makers, influential Iranians, and foreign correspondents. While Khatami's call for dialogue failed to change Washington, one result of this conference was the creation of the website Gulf 2000 which continues to provide platform for information and comment on Iran, the Gulf and the region. Khatami was succeeded by erratic hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). His hostile attitude toward the US and the West gave a boost to the powerful anti-Iran lobby in Washington, which was heavily influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who had tried for three decades to drag the US into a war with Iran. The landmark 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions was negotiated during the presidency of reformist Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021). Iran carried out its commitments under the Obama administration deal and secured some relief from sanctions which had crippled its economy. At that time, IAEA chief Grossi said Iran's nuclear programme was "primitive." The deal restricted enrichment to 3.67 per cent for civilian power plants, reduced its stockpile, compelled Iran to export enriched uranium above the limit, and compelled Iran to use old model centrifuges for enrichment. Iran was subjected to the most stringent and invasive regime of monitoring and inspections ever imposed on any country. However, in 2018, Trump aborted the deal and proclaimed1,500 sanctions, disrupting the process of reconstituting US-Iran relations. Iran responded in 2019 by enriching uranium to 20 and 60 per cent, amassing a large stockpile, building advanced centrifuges, and curbing IAEA monitoring, Hardliners in the Iranian clerical establishment engineered the 2021 election of Ebrahim Raisi who reverted to an anti-US stance until he died in a helicopter crash in 2024. Iran again swung to the reformist faction by electing Masoud Pezeshkian as president who had pledged to clinch a new nuclear agreement. Having failed to restore relations with the US, which remains Iran's chief antagonist on the global scene, Tehran has cultivated ties within the region. This process was expanded by the 2023 restoration of Saudi Iranian relations and promised the stability Gulf countries require to pursue economic and social advancement. This has been jeopardised by Israel's war on Iran and US military and political intervention.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Term limits won't fix what's wrong with Congress
David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service Support for imposing term limits on the US Congress is gaining steam, with at least half a dozen state legislatures approving resolutions urging a cap on service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It stands to reason. Congress' job approval ratings are perennially in the tank, and a fresh Quinnipiac University poll reveals more of the same. In the survey, Republicans, who control both chambers, received positive marks from just 32% of registered voters. Democrats fared even worse, garnering a meager 21% approval rating. Many Americans across the political spectrum believe term limits would invigorate Capitol Hill, forcing older lawmakers to make way for new faces, loosening the stranglehold of politics and donors on lawmaking and enabling policy outcomes more responsive to their priorities. They're wrong — especially on that last part. Rather than making members of the House and Senate more responsive to the voters, term limits would shift power from veteran, experienced lawmakers to unelected staffers, executive branch bureaucrats and K Street lobbyists, none of whom would be subject to term limits. Just ask longtime political operatives in California, who have watched firsthand the impact of term-limits on the state legislature. Early in my career, I was a statehouse reporter in California, covering a legislature that limited assembly members to three, two-year terms and senators to two, four-year terms. Reform was minimal; political jockeying to reach the next elected position was rampant; and the work product generally was mediocre because novice lawmakers who didn't know what they were doing quickly assumed committee chairmanships and political leadership. Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican operative in Sacramento, describes it as a 'transfer of institutional power' from elected officials to unelected government professionals and lobbyists. The experience was failure enough that in 2012 Californians approved Proposition 28, a voter initiative that overhauled term-limits. To solve the myriad problems created by letting inexperienced lawmakers govern the state with America's largest population and biggest economy, voters agreed to extend the years of service allowed in either chamber of the legislature to a dozen years (six, two-year terms in the assembly and three, four-year terms in the senate). But there was a trade-off. To sell voters on increasing the number of assembly and senate terms politicians can serve, the total years they are permitted to serve in the legislature overall were reduced from 14 to 12. And that means many of the governing pitfalls Proposition 28 aimed to address have lingered. 'Senior committee staff consider themselves members since they feel they know more than these neophyte legislators,' said David Louden, a Republican operative who previously served as chief of staff to four members of the California legislature. These legislative aides 'end up driving the policy of the committee, as opposed to the legislator,' he added. But cautionary tales about the potential downsides of terms limits have failed to dissuade voters from their firm belief that limits on Congressional service are the antidote for what ails the House and Senate. Over 80% of Americans support Congressional term limits. That would require a constitutional amendment. As political writer John Fund reports for National Review, six legislatures — Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee — have approved resolutions 'calling for an Article V convention to impose term limits on Congress,' with Arizona and Ohio poised to do the same. (A convention would only be triggered if 34 states passed such a resolution.) Meanwhile, there also is support for congressional term limits brewing in Congress. Freshman Senator Dave McCormick and fifth-term Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, both Republicans from Pennsylvania, have jointly proposed amending the Constitution to put a ceiling on congressional service. Their plan would limit senators to two, six-year terms and House members to six, two-year terms, so that no politician could spend more than a dozen years in either chamber. To encourage support for the measure, McCormick and Fitzpatrick would exclude members who were elected before the 2022 midterm elections. 'Our Founding Fathers never imagined that Congress would become an institution filled with career politicians who stay on well past retirement age,' McCormick said in a statement. The senator's point about politicians who stick around beyond the standard retirement age is particularly resonant in a political era with so many elderly political leaders — a development that has left many Democratic, Republican and independent voters hungry for new leadership. On this front, Stutzman pointed out that California's term-limits law has been effective. 'At a time when the US Senate is as old as it's ever been, term limits in California have certainly led to a younger legislature,' he said. 'There were certainly decades-long incumbents that were finally forced to move on once term limits took effect.' My opposition to congressional term-limits notwithstanding, I get the appeal. Roughly a dozen years before I took up political reporting, in the fall of 1990, I voted for Proposition 140, implementing term-limits on the California legislature. Get the career politicians out, I figured. Get imaginative industry professionals with real-world skills in. They would go to Sacramento and focus on good governance and solving problems, I thought, because constitutionally constrained tenures would free them from worrying about reelection. Then, in the winter of 2003, I started covering the statehouse and saw the consequences of my vote up close. It had only made things worse. I can only imagine what would happen in Washington, especially with presidents who take a rather expansive view of their executive powers.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Musk lashes out at Senate's take on ‘beautiful' megabill
Elon Musk has slammed the Senate version of President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" as support for the motion to proceed with the legislation in the upper chamber comes down to the wire. "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!" Musk wrote on X on Saturday afternoon. "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Senate Republicans dropped the final text of the sprawling 940-page bill late on Friday evening. Trump has said he wanted the Senate to pass the legislation — which would include sweeping spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017, increased spending for the military, oil exploration, and immigration enforcement —before the July 4th weekend. Republicans, who have 53 seats, plan to pass the bill using the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to sidestep a filibuster from the Democrats as long as the legislation relates to the budget. For the past week, the Senate parliamentarian's office has issued advisories about which parts do not comply with the rules of reconciliation. The biggest sticking point was major changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the legislation would require that Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and without dependent children would have to work or participate in community service or education for 80 hours a month. In addition, the legislation limits the amount of money states can tax health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes to raise money for Medicaid. But the American Hospital Association said this would devastate rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid dollars. The parliamentarian removed the provider tax provision, but the new version of the bill simply delays when the cap goes into effect. Before the text dropped, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who hails from a state with a large number of rural hospitals and that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in 2023, said he was a "no" on the motion to proceed because of Medicaid. "It will cause a lot of people to have to be moved off of Medicaid," he told The Independent on Friday evening. "Is just inescapable. The price tag's too high, and the transition protocol, even if you agree with the ultimate target." In addition, the legislation also rolls back some of the renewable energy tax credits implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act, the legislation former President Joe Biden signed that used the same budget reconciliation process. If the bill passes the Senate, it will return to the House of Representatives, which passed it last month. But plenty of conservatives have made objections to the Senate's changes. Trump lobbied senators on Saturday while playing golf with Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Tillis, who's up for re-election in 2028, outlined his opposition to the bill again on Saturday, saying in a statement that "It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population." Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana wrote on X ahead of the vote on Saturday, "I have just concluded productive discussions with leadership. I will be leading an amendment to strip the sale of public lands from this bill. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed. We must quickly pass the Big Beautiful Bill to advance President Trump's agenda." While, President Donald Trump threatened Senate Republicans who defy him and his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as the legislation cleared a key test vote in a dramatic night in the upper chamber of Congress. After negotiations dragged on for hours Saturday evening, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to open a debate on the legislation, moving one step closer to landing the bill on Trump's desk by his self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The Independent
