In today’s New York Times, I have an op-ed reflecting on the most recent Supreme Court term. Originally, I planned to write a piece saying “the Court is doing fine, basically!” but ultimately, I had to add a giant asterisk to that statement.
The op-ed is titled A Principled Supreme Court, Unnerved by Trump. (My working title was “The Trump Exception.” A cheekier title could have been “‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Derangement Syndrome.”)
Starting off:
At the end of another significant term, the Supreme Court has issued major rulings that will have a lasting impact on the law. Despite widespread criticism of the court’s decisions in areas like administrative law, much of it questioning their integrity or legitimacy, it is important to acknowledge the Court’s commitment to historical context in constitutional cases rather than imposing modern policy views. While most of the court’s decisions are principled and sound, there are a few exceptions.
This year, there were two notable flaws in the court’s performance, both unfortunately related to Donald Trump.
Continuing in the middle:
The ruling in Trump v. Anderson lacked a solid foundation in text and history, contradicting the basic structure of the Electoral College. It appeared to be a strategic move to avoid controversy without taking a clear stance on the events of Jan. 6.
In Trump v. United States, the court’s reasoning strayed from constitutional tradition, relying on a precedent like Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which raised concerns about its basis in constitutional principles. Justice Barrett proposed a more limited form of immunity in her concurring opinion.
Some critics argue that the court’s decisions lack principle and legitimacy, which is not entirely accurate.
It is more likely that the court perceives itself as safeguarding the country from exaggerated responses to Trump, rather than being pro-Trump.
In these cases, the court may believe that other institutions have been influenced by a form of “Trump derangement syndrome,” leading them to overreact to his actions.
Wrapping it up:
The court’s actions are driven by a sense of statesmanship, which is crucial in today’s political climate. However, this statesmanship sometimes involves outcome-oriented decision-making that contradicts the court’s own principles. It trusts states with certain issues but not others, failing to hold a consistent standard.
When dealing with Trump, the court’s lack of trust in other institutions prevents it from self-reflection.
You can read the full op-ed here. Additionally, for a more detailed analysis of the immunity case in Trump v. United States, check out this article and the Divided Argument podcast.
