The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has issued a series of decisions that appear to dramatically expand executive power, creating a divide between the power of the president and that of regulatory agencies within the executive branch itself. These decisions, a direct result of the conservative legal movement’s agenda, have a long history extending back to the Reagan administration and have implications that will reverberate long after the current term ends.
Key Takeaways:
- The court granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, a decision that sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
- The court issued a series of rulings that will make it more difficult for administrative agencies to impose regulations that impact business interests, potentially impacting consumer safety and environmental protection.
- This shift in power reflects the conservative movement’s long-held desire to curtail the power of regulatory agencies and strengthen presidential control over the executive branch, a philosophy fueled in part by the belief that regulation represents an undue burden on businesses.
A History of Tension: The Rise of the Administrative State and Conservative Legal Movement
The conflict between the executive branch and regulatory agencies stems from the creation of the modern administrative state during the Great Depression and New Deal era. The complexities of regulating the rapidly evolving economy led Congress to delegate authority to specialized agencies to create detailed regulations in various sectors. However, this delegation of power posed a challenge: how to balance congressional intent with the ability of presidents to control the resulting bureaucracy.
The conservative legal movement, fueled by wealthy donors and anti-regulatory libertarians, saw this delegation as an infringement upon the president’s role as the head of the executive branch. The conservative movement believed that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, should hold ultimate control over policy, arguing that agencies were unaccountable and hindered business interests.
The Reagan Era and the Unitary Executive Theory
The conservative legal movement came to power during the Reagan administration, leading to a renewed push to expand presidential authority. Reagan’s lawyers argued for the unitary executive theory, which asserts that the president holds exclusive control over the entire executive branch, including independent agencies. This theory saw regulatory agencies as a threat to presidential power.
Several key figures in the conservative legal movement, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, were lawyers during the Reagan administration, and their views on executive power were shaped during this era.
A Long Game Played Out: The Trump Era and Beyond
The conservative legal movement gained further momentum during the Trump administration. Former President Trump, who repeatedly promised to "drain the swamp," actively sought to dismantle the administrative state.
Trump’s first White House counsel, Donald McGahn, pushed for conservative judges who shared his anti-regulatory views. He succeeded in placing Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, both of whom publicly questioned the constitutionality of independent regulatory agencies.
The Trump administration’s efforts to control the executive branch culminated in the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. The court’s ruling on presidential immunity places a president above the law, echoing the pronouncements of absolute monarchs.
The Cost of Conservative Ideology: A Diminished Future
The Supreme Court’s decisions, heavily influenced by the conservative legal movement, have profound implications for the future of American governance.
- Endangered Environmental and Consumer Protections: The court’s rulings on regulatory agencies will likely lead to a weakening of environmental protections and consumer safety regulations, as businesses find it easier to challenge these rules in court.
- President as King: The granting of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution while in office sets a dangerous precedent, creating a president who is virtually above the law. This risks eroding the checks and balances built into American democracy.
- Erosion of Checks and Balances: The expansion of executive power further reduces the role of Congress in governing, potentially leading to a concentration of power in the executive branch.
The legacy of the conservative legal movement on the Supreme Court has already made a dramatic impact on the American political landscape. These rulings are likely to usher in a new era where presidential power is expanded at the expense of both the public and independent institutions. The ramifications of these decisions will be felt for decades to come, potentially changing the very nature of American democracy.
