The Supreme Court: A Mixed Bag of Originalism and Pragmatism
The Supreme Court’s latest term has concluded, leaving behind a trail of rulings that will shape the legal landscape for years to come. While many of these decisions have been lauded for their adherence to originalism, relying on historical understandings of the Constitution, the Court’s handling of cases directly involving Donald Trump has drawn criticism and concerns about its impartiality. This term, the Court seems to have adopted a dual approach, championing originalism in a majority of its rulings while resorting to pragmatism in its decisions surrounding Trump, raising questions about the Court’s motivations and its commitment to a consistent judicial philosophy.
Key Takeaways:
- Originalism Takes Center Stage: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of historical understandings when interpreting the Constitution, particularly in areas of administrative law. This approach has led to rulings that curtail the power of federal agencies and strengthen the role of courts in interpreting ambiguous laws.
- The Court’s Approach to Trump Cases: Despite its emphasis on originalism, the Court’s rulings in cases involving Trump have been met with skepticism. Notably, its decisions in Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States have been perceived as attempts to shield the former president from accountability for his actions. These rulings have been criticized for prioritizing pragmatism over adherence to established legal principles.
- A Balancing Act? The Court’s dual approach might be interpreted as a careful balancing act between its commitment to originalism and its desire to navigate the complexities of Trump-related cases. While the Court may genuinely believe that these cases demand a pragmatic approach, its decisions have opened the door to concerns about its objectivity.
- Potential Consequences: The Court’s approach could have far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining its credibility and public trust. The perception that the Court is swayed by political considerations could erode the public’s confidence in its ability to uphold the law impartially.
A Look at the Court’s Decision-Making:
The Supreme Court’s term was marked by several significant decisions that highlighted its increasing emphasis on originalism. In cases related to administrative law, the Court has taken a more restrictive approach to the power of agencies, placing limitations on their ability to impose regulations and fines without clear authorization from Congress. This has been seen as a victory for those who advocate for a more limited administrative state.
For instance, the Court ruled against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), finding its funding structure unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority opinion, argued that the CFPB’s structure violated the separation of powers, as it was insulated from direct congressional control. This decision, which was joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, signals a significant shift in the Court’s approach to agency structure and its relationship to Congress.
The Court also issued a decision that significantly curtailed the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate power plants, relying on its interpretation of the Clean Air Act. This decision, which relied on its historical understanding of the Act’s intended scope, was seen as a victory for the fossil fuel industry and a setback for environmental advocates.
However, the Court’s decision to rely on originalism has not always resulted in outcomes that are viewed as ideologically conservative. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law that restricted the carrying of concealed handguns in public. Drawing on historical precedent, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to carry a firearm for self-defense. This decision was hailed by gun rights advocates, demonstrating that originalist arguments can lead to unexpected outcomes.
The Trump Factor:
While the Court’s reliance on originalism in many cases has been commended, its approach to matters concerning Donald Trump has sparked significant controversy. In Trump v. Anderson, the Court overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision that disqualified Trump from the state’s ballot due to his alleged involvement in the January 6th insurrection. The Court, without considering the merits of the allegations against Trump, ruled that states lack the power to disqualify candidates based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – a provision that prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding federal office.
This decision, which was criticized by legal scholars and political commentators, was widely perceived as a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for Trump, allowing him to avoid accountability for his actions. Critics argued that the Court’s ruling effectively nullified the 14th Amendment’s protection against insurrection, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future political turmoil.
In another case involving Trump, Trump v. United States, the Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity from criminal indictment. Here, the Court articulated a broadened concept of presidential immunity, offering significant protection to the President in official actions. While the Court rejected Trump’s arguments for absolute immunity, its ruling established a broad framework, leaving significant leeway for future presidents to claim protection from criminal prosecution.
This decision, which prioritized protecting the presidency from undue interference, was seen as another instance of the Court prioritizing pragmatism over clear legal principles. The Court’s reasoning was criticized for drawing upon precedents from the 1980s, which were widely deemed inconsistent with its current approach to originalism.
The Court’s Motivation:
The Court’s decisions in these Trump-related cases have fueled accusations of bias and a willingness to prioritize political expediency over legal consistency. Critics argue that the Court, despite its emphasis on originalism in other areas, appears to be applying a different standard to Trump, seemingly motivated by a desire to shield him from accountability.
Some observers believe that the Court’s decisions are rooted in a perceived need to counter what they perceive as an overreach by other institutions in their pursuit of Trump. The Court’s rulings might be seen as an attempt to restore balance, ensuring that Trump, despite his controversial actions, is not subjected to an unfair or politically motivated prosecution.
The Future of the Court:
The Supreme Court’s dual approach to originalism and pragmatism remains a source of tension and debate. Its decisions, particularly those involving Trump, have cast a shadow of doubt over its impartiality. The Court’s focus on historical understandings in interpreting the Constitution is commendable, but its willingness to deviate from this approach when dealing with Trump raises concerns about its commitment to a consistent judicial philosophy.
The Court’s future decisions will be closely scrutinized for any signs of continued pragmatic or political considerations. Whether the Court will continue to prioritize originalism or succumb to the complexities of political realities remains to be seen. The Court’s legacy and its role in shaping the future of American law will depend on its ability to maintain a consistent and principled approach to interpreting the Constitution, regardless of the political climate or the personal involvements of those before it.
