The US Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday with a dock, already full of potentially important cases that can determine the scale of the presidential authority of Donald Trump – and more prospects.
For eight months, when Trump returned to the White House, he checked the borders of the executive branch, unilaterally implementing new politicians, reducing federal budgets and labor and trying to attract previously independent agencies and institutions more directly under his control.
The last brewing legal battle comes from the president’s attempts to take control of the State National Guard unit and deploy them in cities, where he claims that there are public unrest and rampant crimes – regarding objection with local and government officials.
In Oregon, the federal judge issued orders blocking the deployment of Trump troops in Portland. The court of appeal must revise this step in the coming days.
“This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law,” wrote Judge Karin Immort, which Trump appointed on a bench for his first term.
“The defendants put forward a number of arguments, which, if they are accepted, risks the line between the civil and military federal government to the detriment of this nation.”
As soon as the Court of Appeal says that the Supreme Court can intervene through the so -called “shadow list” by releasing a decision that could limit Trump's ability to use the military on US land – or give it a free hand, at least temporarily.
Such reviews have recently become more commonplace, since most of the judges of the Supreme Court, in response to the emergency petitions of the Trump administration, largely allowed the president’s actions to move forward, while legal tasks are being drawn.
“Turning the war between the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts will become a driving force in the coming period,” Samuel Bray, professor of the law faculty of the University of Chicago, Samuel Bray, professor of the law faculty of the University of Chicago, said last month.
The support of the court from this shadow list was criticized by leftist scientists and politicians as improper use of the powers of the court. His orders, as a rule, were short, offering limited legal reasoning and leaving judges of a lower level with minimal leadership.
“All Americans should be alarmed by the growing dependence of the Supreme Court on its shadow list in order to resolve conflicting and high -profile cases without any transparency -no significant explanations, oral arguments or reasoning,” said the Senator Cori Kori from New Jersey earlier this year.
“This even more replaces the discussions and decisions of the court from public control and pulls it out of accountability.”
However, in the coming months, the court will resolve issues of the presidential power – and other high -profile disputes – head, hear oral arguments and make full decisions on the merits.
“This will not be able to get away with one-page orders that do not explain the reasoning,” said Maya Saint, professor of the Harvard School Kennedy, who specializes in the policy of the Supreme Court and the United States. “If they are going to provide more power to the leader, this will have to explain why.”
The court must already consider whether federal laws prohibit the president with the elimination of members of institutions intended for congress, independent of the presidential influence that violates the executive power.
The judges will also hear the arguments in an accelerated consideration of Trump's attempt to dismiss Lisa Cook from her position of the governor in the influential council of the federal reserve system – a matter that can significantly increase the president’s power over American economic policy.
The United States – and the global economy – are also fronts in the center, since the judges of the Supreme Court will have a chance to decide whether many of the one -sided tariffs for foreign imports have an adequate legal authority or should be canceled.
Judges can also consider Trump's attempts to unilaterally reduce federal expenses and dismiss public servants of a lower level, as well as his aggressive policy of immigration and deportation.
Although the court had not yet agreed to consider Trump's attempt to terminate automatic citizenship for those born on the US land, he can do this in the coming months.
“The field of activity of the executive branch will become the front in the center of this period,” said Professor Jennifer Knou from the Chicago Faculty of Law of the University of Chicago University, in an electronic letter to the BBC.
“The case coming to the court will check the highest political and economic priorities of the Trump administration, whether it is tariffs or citizenship by law.
“One question will be whether the judges will apply the principles (for example, the main issues of the doctrine), which he used to remove Biden’s signature initiatives politically impartial.”
The court used its newly created “doctrine of basic issues” to put Biden's efforts to forgive student loans and environmental rules, believing that Congress did not give him a clear permit for this.
The presidential power is the central direction of the term of office of the Supreme Court of this year, but cases related to several political and cultural contradictions are also planned in the coming months.
The court will consider whether Colorado prohibits the ban on conversion therapy – a contradictory practice that is trying to use counseling to change the sexual orientation of a person or gender identity – violates the constitutional protection of freedom of speech.
There are also two cases in the list in which there are prohibitions on state drugs on transsexual athletes in an intercosal sports competition.
The Republican Congressman in Illinois challenges the state law, which allows the mailing from mailing by mail up to two weeks after the election day.
A group of Louisiana conservatives asked the court to cancel the provision of a law on the rights of vote, which requires the states to recruit Congress districts, which guarantee the representation of black voters equal to their level of population.
And the Republican Party is aimed at the legislation on decades, which does not allow political candidates and parties to coordinate their costs for the campaign.
Over the past few years, this Supreme Court with the dominance of conservatives has demonstrated the willingness to release new significant new decisions that have sharply changed the legal landscape of America.
On such topics as abortion rights, the federal regulatory authority and the consideration of the race upon admission to college, the court canceled the decades of the existing precedent.
These decisions contributed to a public view of the Supreme Court, which is becoming more and more polarized along the partisan lines.
In a recent survey of the Fund, I drink opinions about the highest legal body of the country almost evenly divided, and the Republicans supported the democrats very critical.
By the time the court makes its final decisions within this period, expected by the end of June next year, 6-3 conservative majority in court may have broken a new foundation and again changed American law.
With additional reports from Kyla Epstein.
