6 hours ago
13
In another one of those strange and unprecedented moments of the Trump years, the president of the United States showed up at the supreme court the other day. No other presidents have done so, probably because they – to varying degrees – respected the separation of power among the three branches of US government.
But Trump has not shown himself to share in that basic principle.
The court was hearing a high-profile and immensely consequential case about “birthright citizenship”, and Trump apparently wanted to put his thumb on the scales of justice. A victory for his side would prevent children of undocumented immigrants from automatically becoming American citizens.
He sat there for about an hour, signaling how important this is for his agenda, and hoping, perhaps, that his mere presence would help the cause.
The court seems poised to rule against his position, despite the Trumpian sympathies of some of the most conservative justices.
If so, that ruling will be in keeping with a recent slew of others – mostly at the lower court level – that have not gone Trump’s way.
In recent days, courts have ruled that the president can’t just remake the White House with a hugely expensive ballroom without congressional approval; that an executive order to bar federal funding from public radio and television was unconstitutional; and that the administration can’t restrict reporters’ access to the Pentagon based on what the administration deems appropriate information for the public.
To those who care about the rule of law and the preservation of US democracy, these kinds of rulings are heartening news. The courts are serving as a bulwark against at least some of Trump’s excesses.
“It’s significant that the courts are standing up in so many cases,” Justin Florence, co-founder of the non-profit Protect Democracy Project, told me in an interview on Thursday. “The lower courts, in particular, have stood firm for the rule of law.”
The supreme court, he noted, was much more of a mixed bag, reflecting the court’s rightward tilt, and the extent to which Trump’s own judicial appointees are ruling in his favor.
Florence sees three reasons why the lower court rulings matter. First, as exemplified in immigration cases, anti-Trump rulings “stop bad things from happening”, such as illegal deportations without due process.
Second, more broadly, the lower court decisions “have shown that he’s not an invincible autocrat”. They are some constraints, these rulings implicitly say.
And perhaps most important, as we look ahead to the midterm and 2028 presidential elections, court rulings “may be essential to ensure free and fair elections”, because they underscore procedures and practices that protect the vote.
Florence is optimistic that, despite Trump’s efforts to subvert that process, the midterm elections will be conducted fairly, thanks in part to lower court rulings, past and probably future.
But these rulings – especially given the proclivities of the highest court – aren’t enough to protect democracy all by themselves or to keep the rule of law intact.
“As necessary as the courts are in this fight, they are far from sufficient against a figure like Mr. Trump, who refuses to honor the conventions and commitments of constitutional law,” wrote the legal scholar Duncan Hosie in a New York Times guest essay, “The Courts Cannot Save Us From Trump.”
And in some cases, apparent good news doesn’t translate into reality.
As Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist Papers, courts don’t have armies; they rely on public trust, and the other branches of government, to enforce their decisions.
And on a practical level, other factors can weaken the power of court rulings.
Take the decision on public media funding. Despite a federal judge’s decision that Trump’s executive order violated the first amendment, the ruling won’t mean much right now because Congress voted to “claw back” about $500m for the organization that distributes funds to NPR and PBS; since then, that organization, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, has shut down.
“The ruling is a victory for press freedom and the rule of law, which is worth celebrating,” wrote Jim Schachter, CEO of New Hampshire Public Radio. “Unfortunately … it does nothing to restore federal funding for NHPR or NPR.” In a letter to listeners, he emphasized that community support was essential to keep public radio alive.
On the bright side, the court ruling could free lawmakers to restore public-media funding in the future.
That situation tells us something about the anti-Trump court rulings more generally – that they are necessary but certainly not sufficient.
Yes, the lower-court rulings matter a great deal. And no, they don’t solve the larger problems, at least not immediately.
That’s going to be up to a citizenry that cares enough not only to vote but to restore and rebuild America’s damaged institutions for its long-term future.
-
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
