President Donald J. Trump is as actively involved in the activities of the Supreme Court as any president, and yet, in the high court’s just-completed session, the president was not as dominant as his reputation.
Many people assume that because the president put three justices on the Supreme Court in his first term, he is unique in his influence, but two other first-term presidents put three justices on the court: John Adams and Herbert Hoover. Two one-term presidents, Benjamin Harrison and Warren G. Harding, put four justices on the high court—and Harding died in office.
One-term President William H. Taft put five men on the court, and he elevated another to chief justice—later becoming chief justice himself.
Trump’s three justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, each have their own paths that often coincide with the president’s interests, unlike the three justices on the left, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who never waver from the partisan interests of the presidents and senators who put them on the Supreme Court.
In the White House East Room, there are four large portraits: George and Martha Washington, along with William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.
Just as T.R. is Trump’s muse for foreign policy, McKinley is his muse for economic policy, especially the Ohioan’s advocacy of tariffs for revenue, diplomacy and the protection of the American worker and businessmen.
Using the extension powers Congress gave the executive to impose tariffs on many countries in the pursuit of revenue, diplomacy and the protection of the American worker and businessmen, Trump relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However, an educational toy company, Learning Resources, argued that he overstepped his authority.
As a practical matter, the court unwound the hallmark of the president’s soft-power foreign policy, and the decision ordered the Treasury Department to refund the hundreds of billions already collected.
In the end, the president has other trade and tariff authorities to exercise, but it is a huge setback because of the time wasted and the hassles and complications the court dealt the president.
The biggest and most consequential loss for the country was the Trump v. Barbara ruling, which overturned the president’s Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order 14160.
Trump exercised his right to interpret the Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment, so that the children of non-citizens born in the United States do not enjoy automatic American citizenship. This has been the practice for many decades, but Solicitor General John Sauer argued to the justices that this was not always the case.
Sauer pointed out in his oral arguments that the 14th Amendment, one of the three post-Civil War amendments Confederate states were coerced to ratify as a condition of rejoining the Union, was written to acknowledge the legal situation of freed slaves and their children.
This automatic, or birthright, citizenship never applied to diplomats or even Indians. Congress recognized this in 1924 when it specifically granted citizenship to Indians, who had previously been citizens of their tribal nations. States were slow to grant Indians the right to vote, which was not accepted in all states until 1957.
Birthright citizenship had always been an abstract topic of discussion until people realized the booming birth tourism industry. There are hundreds of businesses in California alone that cater to pregnant women flying into the country to make their babies Americans.
In Red China, it is estimated that more than one million U.S. citizen children are growing up there, which means that one day they will reach voting age. It is like an electoral time bomb, made worse by the law that allows overseas Americans to request ballots from any precinct they choose.
How long before the ChiComs start overtly deciding our elections? No idea, but thanks to the Supreme Court, one day we will find out.
The third serious loss for the president was the high court’s blocking his attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook, an economics professor, borrowed money for properties in Georgia and Michigan and, on the mortgage forms, listed the properties as her primary residence.
After William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department related to her mortgages, Trump fired her from her post at the Federal Reserve.
In Trump v. Cook, the high court blocked the president from firing Cook.
In the first two losses SCOTUS handed the president, there was no concern given for the economic or political damage done. It was just about following the letter of the law.
With Cook, the Supreme Court decided that allowing Trump to fire Cook would adversely affect the independence of the Federal Reserve—rooted in the history and traditions of the country.
The main reason the high court protected Cook was that she was only charged, but there had been no conviction. However, many people are fired for offenses that have not been fully adjudicated in the federal criminal system.
The justices gave Trump an out, since his Justice Department could proceed with an indictment and prosecution—but there is no way that is going to happen.
In the end, Trump had many significant victories, but these losses present serious areas of improvement and future political action.