WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has concluded its 2024-2025 term with a series of landmark decisions that significantly expanded presidential authority, particularly benefiting the Trump administration in its second term. Legal scholar Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, analyzed these developments on The New Yorker's "Washington Roundtable," highlighting a "wave of victories" for the executive branch and examining how "outside influence seeps into the Court’s decision-making."
Professor Litman, co-host of the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast and author of the recent book "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes," argues that the Court's conservative majority has increasingly prioritized political outcomes over traditional legal principles. Her work contends that the judiciary is "bending over backwards" to enable the administration's agenda, often by limiting the ability of lower courts to block nationwide policies.
Among the notable rulings cited by legal analysts are Trump v. United States, which granted broad immunity to former presidents for official acts, and Federal Agencies v. Environmental Group, which curtailed federal agencies' ability to issue regulations without explicit congressional approval. Additionally, Immigration Enforcement v. State of California upheld the administration's aggressive immigration policies, overturning previous lower court injunctions. These decisions are seen by critics as a dramatic reassertion of executive power.
Concerns are also mounting regarding external pressures on the judiciary. Reports indicate that "dark money" groups and well-funded advocacy organizations are increasingly attempting to sway Supreme Court decisions through sophisticated public relations campaigns and strategic amicus curiae briefs. Revelations about financial ties and gifts to justices have further fueled debates about judicial ethics and transparency, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates have expressed alarm at the breadth of these decisions, asserting they erode checks and balances and concentrate authority within the executive branch. The consistent pattern of deference to the executive branch, particularly in areas where the administration has sought to bypass traditional legislative processes, has sparked intense debate about the future of American governance and the Supreme Court's role in upholding the separation of powers.