Is the US Supreme Court a Trump Court?
Image: Mandel Ngan / AFP
Has the United States Supreme Court become a Trump Court with three Trump appointees: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brent Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett? The short paradoxical answer is 'yes' and 'no'.
For starters, a substantial percentage (40-50%) of Supreme Court decisions in any term are unanimous. But not all cases are equally significant. Some plow pioneering constitutional territory, for example, Trump v. United States bestowing criminal immunity on all presidential acts. Others overrule long standing precedents, for example, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade's recognition of a constitutional right to an abortion.
Trump appointee Justice Barrett has displayed an independent streak in garden variety cases. But she is a reliable member of a 6-member majority in major constitutional or quasi-constitutional cases with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brent Kavanaugh. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito are appointees of President George W. Bush. Justice Thomas was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Neither Bush #41 nor Bush #43 are MAGA cheerleaders. In other words, the 6-member conservative majority represents a broader political consensus than Mr. Trump himself.
Moreover, Trump's influence on the Supreme Court has been less than President Franklin D. Roosevelt's. The latter appointed eight new Justices, all New Deal enthusiasts, and elevated Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice. The Roosevelt Court revolutionized congressional power under the Commerce Clause and presidential power over national security and foreign policy.
Supreme Court Justices serve for life to encourage their independence from the Presidents who appointed them. Experience shows mixed success on that score. Justices do occasionally disappoint their benefactors. President Theordore Roosevelt appointed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. But within a year he complained about a Holmes dissent, 'I could carve out a banana, a judge with more backbone than that. President Harry Truman appointed his Attorney General, Tom C. Clark, who voted against him in the famous Steel Seizure Case. President Dwight Eisenhower reportedly regretted his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan as 'my two worst mistakes.' President Richard Nixon appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justice Harry Blackmun. But the former authored the Nixon tapes case which led to the President's resignation and the latter pioneered a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Justice Anthony Kennedy proved a disappointment to President Ronald Reagan and Justice David Souter disappointed Bush #41.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The Trump Court voted against President Trump's anti-immigration initiatives to end President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in DHS v. Regents of the University of California and to reinstate a Census citizenship question in Department of Commerce v. New York. Further, the Court held in its most recent term in Noem v. Abrego Garcia (April 10, 2025) that President Trump was required to 'facilitate' the return of a wrongly deported immigrant from a dungeon in El Salvador.
But these exceptions prove an important rule. Justices of the Supreme Court, by and large, do reflect the political inclinations of their presidential benefactors. Thus, the Trump Court has followed Trump's lead on freedom of religion, guns, LGBTQ people, the environment, deregulation, national security, and unchecked presidential power. In Trump v. CASA Inc. (June 27, 2025), the Court clipped the wings of subordinate tribunals to restrain unconstitutional executive orders coming out of the gate.
Over the long haul, the Supreme Court never strays far from public opinion. As fabled Justice Benjamin Cardozo elaborated, 'The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by.'
* Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge will consider on Thursday whether to prevent President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. American Civil Liberties Union lawyers are set to ask U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump's directive. Granting class status would empower Laplante, if he is inclined to do so, to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. The ACLU and others filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. Under the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's executive order would take effect on July 27. Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court's ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump's directive likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Justice Department has argued that Trump's order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump's order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. The justices ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump's order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called 'universal injunctions' that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump's order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump's order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it. In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents. Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that 'the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs' members' children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely.' But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. ACLU lawyers are now urging Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump's order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected. Trump's administration counters that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would 'short circuit' the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
John Steenhuisen needs to grow up or get out
DA leader John Steenhuisen's antics smack more of the petulance of self-entitlement and the psychological trauma of loss of former privileges under apartheid, says the writer. Image: Phando Jikelo / Parliament of RSA Mushtak Parker IS THE DA wanting to have its cake and eat it? Is its establishment in 2000 and playbook a truly 'Made in Africa' construct in the morass of the post-apartheid dispensation and discourse, or a caricature conjured up from the melting pot of the losers in the majority struggle for freedom, equity and justice after over two centuries of colonial-cum-white supremacist rule? At first glance, the DA, the second largest party in the GNU 'coalition of the unwilling' after the ANC, feigns the very epitome of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), which would be anathema to the DOGE dinosaurs roaming the urban sprawls and steppes of MAGA America, its ally of ideological and race-based expediency. Did you notice the callous coyness of John Steenhuisen, the DA leader and Minister of Agriculture in the GNU, in the oval office in the White House in May when President Trump and his sycophants literally ambushed and put the boot into a stoical and dignified President Ramaphosa with fake news about Afrikaner 'genocide', white victimhood, marginalisation and land grabs? It was not the DA leader's finest hour, but that coyness betrays a fundamental flaw in his and his party's fit for purposeness in South African polity and indeed in the GNU, which under its current persona and profile together with the arithmetic of race makes it unelectable unless of course the country undergoes a seismic event very high on the Richter Scale of electoral politics. Fast forward to June 25, when Ramaphosa sacked his Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Andrew Whitfield, a member of the DA, for defying protocol by undertaking an overseas trip without prior permission from his President as the rules clearly stipulate. One man's 'minor peccadillo' is another man's 'wilful defiance'. There are plenty of precedents as to the sacking of ministers defying their commander-in-chief. The question is not necessarily the act of defiance itself, but the motive behind the visit to the US at a time when the Trump administration egged on by a treacherous so-called minority 'Afrikaner lobby' had it in for the GNU and ANC. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Who did Whitfield meet and socialise with during his visit? That it could be construed as an act against the Constitution itself as Ramaphosa has alluded to should also raise alarm bells given that some on the neo-liberal right armed with the casuistry of supposedly legal technicalities are hellbent on tarnishing the Constitution itself as a 'race law'. The puerile reaction of Steenhuisen to the sacking reinforces the notion that his days as the leader of the second largest party in the country and therefore the GNU ought to be numbered. Some say he has lost the plot. It's more likely that he is out of his depth. That a minor peccadillo has changed the persona and style of the DA leader in an instance from passive aggression to humiliating idiopathic juvenile tantrums competes as probably one of the fastest transformative acts in the GNU if not in three decades of democracy. His resort to coalition politics of lawfare, ultimatums, fatuous brinkmanship is unbefitting a self-respecting leader of any national party which should have a contributing role (like others of similar weighting) in the South African political landscape. His antics smack more of the petulance of self-entitlement and the psychological trauma of loss of former privileges under apartheid. It is time that the DA leader either grows up or gets out. Frankly there are lots of actors across the political spectrum of which South Africans have had a gatvol. Polity is not only about government but equally importantly about opposition and political and civic culture. The paucity of credible opposition is a bane of South African politics which does not augur well for the future. Which means we are stuck with the current set-up. The GNU has fizzled out as the great hope of a unified response to the country's seemingly intractable socio-economic woes. That is why its first anniversary is a massive let down for which both Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen must shoulder the blame. It's one thing sacking a minister (from a coalition partner) for going on a free-range walkabout abroad. It's another thing for the president to bask in the ambivalence of indecisiveness when it comes to members of his own party including ministers embroiled in allegations of scandal and corruption. The problem for the DA is its 'genes stupid'. The DA has an historical and genetic disposition to being perceived rightly or wrongly as largely a party serving the interests of the rump white constituency leftover after the historic transition to black majority rule in 1994. It is seized with preserving its privileges couched in the rhetoric of economic liberalism, the free market, the hegemony of the private sector, minimalist state intervention, with little empathy to righting the wrongs of centuries of oppression based on a bigoted weltanschauung of race-based superiority of the white race and its culture. In the topsy turvy world of South African politics, it's never a case of a zero-sum calculation, given the numerous twists in the evolution of our politics. This applies to the ANC, Africa's oldest surviving political movement and party, its current alliance partner the SACP, and to the motley of other parties across the colour spectrum that has since metamorphosed into our remarkable Rainbow Nation. In fact, it was the SACP that started organising workers and became the first non-racial political organisation in South Africa in 1921. Its extreme socialist ideology, however, was never a natural bedfellow of the social conservatism of the ANC nurtured by the Christian missionary movement. That's why the two liberation movements never forged a formal coalition in the nascent struggle against white rule, until the historic democratic elections in 1994. Deputy President Paul Mashatile addressing the 150th Anniversary Gala Dinner of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of South Africa in May could not have been more to the point: 'I was fortunate to have been raised by a pastor and have held the values of Christianity close to my heart. The ANC was launched by believers and has throughout its 113 years of existence been guided by the principles that we have learned from our faith, the most important of these being the instruction to 'love your neighbour as you love yourself'. Even today, in our democratic South Africa, the church remains an indispensable partner in addressing the challenges of poverty, inequality, crime, and social fragmentation. The ANC loves and appreciates the work that the Church and other Faith-based Organisations play in social cohesion, nation-building and moral regeneration in our country.' The dichotomy is the immaculate conception of the ANC/ SACP/Cosatu coalition that has ruled for the last 30 years. The fact that the coalition now includes the DA et al like a second coming should be a pause for thought. The DA is the incestuous result of many parties and movements coalescing the remnants of the National Party of Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha, subsequently transformed into the New National Party (NNP); the Democratic Party; the centrist Progressive Party and the Federal Alliance, over the years and uniting around the apple pie vision of a one nation South Africa, only for the ultimate twist of the NNP jumping ship and siding with the ANC. As for the DA having its cake and eating it is inconceivable. Its very evolution, the bitterness of being perpetual losers therefore irrelevant, its chauvinistic sense of self-entitlement are incompatible with the aspirations of a genuine GNU. No wonder it has opted out of the National Dialogue! Parker is an economist and writer based in London
The South African
3 hours ago
- The South African
Trump's tariffs will hurt the same SA farmers he claimed to support
American president Donald Trump, who recently backed South African farmers, is now imposing tariffs that will affect their livelihoods. Trump recently amplified (false) claims of persecution against white South Africans, and authorised a refugee resettlement program for Afrikaner farmers. For those farmers that remain in South Africa, Trump now finds his trade policies on a collision course with their livelihoods. A 30% tariff on key exports, including citrus, wine, sugar cane, and beef, will take effect on 1 August, ending the duty-free access South Africa enjoyed under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA). Back in April, Trump instituted 30% tariffs on South Africa for all goods imported into America. After facing significant backlash, Trump hit pause on the tariffs for 90 days. Critical US-SA trade talks, including a diplomatic visit by SA president Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House, yielded little progress. On Monday this week, the US president confirmed that he would be subjecting imports from South Africa to the 30% tariff. 'It doesn't make sense to us to welcome South African farmers in America and then the rest that stays behind, to punish them,' Krisjan Mouton, an established citrus farmer in Citrusdal, told Reuters . 'It's going to have a huge impact…it's not profitable to export anymore to the USA.' South Africa is the world's second-largest citrus exporter after Spain. The industry earns around $100 million annually from the US market. Though the US accounts for only 6% of total citrus exports from SA, many farms are built around meeting America's specific size and phytosanitary standards. It makes finding new markets a logistical nightmare, while increasing shipments to other countries may cause an oversupply. Industry leaders have also argued that SA citrus has never competed with US production, but has rather complemented it. 'South African citrus growers do not threaten US citrus growers or US jobs,' said Citrus Growers Association (CGA) chairperson Gerrit van der Merwe. 'In fact, our produce sustains interest and demand for citrus when local US citrus is out of season, eventually benefitting US growers when we hand over consumers at the end of our season.' The new 30% tariff will now remove South Africa's favoured trade status, making South African citrus uncompetitive compared to fruit from South America and Australia. While three-quarters of South Africa's freehold land is white-owned, they will not be the only casualties. Thousands of farmworkers and fruit packers could be laid off too. 'A 30% tariff would wreak havoc on all communities that have, for decades, focused on producing specifically for the US market,' said CGA chief executive Boitshoko Ntshabele. In Citrusdal alone, the CGA estimates that up to 35 000 jobs are on the line. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
