The Supreme Court is wrapping up a term that has focused on President Donald Trump's expansive claims of presidential power. Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, fire the heads of most independent agencies at will and remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor are among the remaining eight cases the justices are expected to decide this week, beginning Monday. The court also is weighing, in cases from West Virginia and Idaho, whether to uphold laws in roughly half the states that prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on their public school and college sports.
Two election-related cases remain, over state laws that allow a grace period for the receipt of mailed ballots, provided they are sent by Election Day, and limits on political party spending in support of candidates for Congress and president. Also outstanding is a dispute over geofence warrants that collect the location history of cellphone users to find people near crime scenes. Critics say the practice is a fishing expedition that violates civil liberties.
Birthright Citizenship at the Center
Arguably the most anticipated ruling is on President Trump's executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, which was one of his first acts after returning as president last year. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Trump's order calls for only providing that right for children born on U.S. soil who have at least one parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
During arguments in April, the justices signaled a more skeptical look at Trump's executive order that would overturn long-settled understanding and deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. In a sign of how important Trump has viewed the case, he became the first sitting president ever recorded to have attended Supreme Court arguments as a listener. Even Trump has said he expects he'll lose on birthright citizenship. The administration's argument would require a significant reinterpretation of the longstanding amendment.
Independent Agencies and the Power to Fire
The extent of Trump's power to fire independent agency members is the oldest undecided case, argued in December. The justices seem likely to overturn, or drastically narrow, a 91-year-old decision that required a cause, like neglect of duty, before a president could remove Senate-confirmed officials from their jobs. The outcome appears to be in little doubt because the conservatives have allowed the firings to take effect while the case plays out, even after lower-court judges found the firings illegal.
The case involves Trump's decision to remove Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner who was first appointed in 2018, because her service was 'inconsistent' with the administration's policies. The act setting up the FTC only permits the president to remove commissioners for cause, and the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States upheld that barrier. But a majority of the court appeared open to allowing Trump to fire Slaughter without cause. The ruling could also have wide-ranging implications for other federal agencies, limiting their independence from the president.
Federal Reserve Independence at Stake
One federal agency that the high court has seemed more inclined to protect is the Federal Reserve. Trump sought to fire Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook last summer over allegations of mortgage fraud against her, making him the first president to try to remove a sitting Fed governor in its history. No president has ever fired a Fed governor in the agency's 112-year history.
Cook has rejected the allegations and argued the Justice Department investigation into her was politically motivated. No charges have been filed against her. Most justices seemed to be leaning against allowing Cook to be dismissed, expressing skepticism about the administration's arguments. The court has also rejected Trump's assertion of the power to unilaterally impose wide-ranging tariffs under an emergency powers law. The decision in February drew Trump's ire, including an unusually harsh and personal denunciation of two of his court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who voted against him.
The court's conservative majority has so far been mostly receptive to Trump's immigration crackdown, including a decision last week allowing the administration to end temporary legal protections for people who came to the U.S. because of war or natural disaster in their homeland. Another decision could make it harder for people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in the United States. By custom, the court finishes its work before July 4. After this week, its next public meeting is the first Monday in October.
