As the Supreme Court rushes to wrap up its term before summer recess, legal journalist Cristian Farias argues that the public has little reason to feel reassured. In an era of aggressive executive overreach, particularly under Donald Trump, the Court's role should not be limited to merely blocking the most extreme power grabs.
Known colloquially as "opinionpalooza," the final weeks of the term see the justices scrambling to issue remaining rulings. But Farias warns against complacency. Upcoming decisions touch on voting by mail, humanitarian protections for immigrants, presidential control over the Federal Reserve, and the critical issue of birthright citizenship. While many expect the Court to reject Trump's attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment, Farias cautions that even a win on these fronts represents only the minimum required of the judiciary.
"That would be a devastating decision, if we lose that case."
Pundits often "sanewash" the Court's actions, highlighting unanimous rulings or moderate outcomes. Chief Justice John Roberts himself has downplayed controversies, stating, "A lot of what we do is of necessity." After the tariffs ruling, some analysts claimed the Court is not in Trump's pocket. But Farias insists such praise is misplaced.
The Court's duty is not to reject outlandish power grabs but to uphold the rule of law consistently. For example, when Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, lower courts blocked the move. The Supreme Court must do the same, but preserving the Fed's independence is not an act of courage—it's the baseline. Similarly, protecting birthright citizenship, a clear command of the 14th Amendment, is the bare minimum, not a groundbreaking stand.
"Upholding this foundational promise is also the bare minimum."
Moreover, the Court's recent rulings have inflicted significant damage. Decisions like Louisiana v. Callais and related cases in Alabama represent the most severe blow to Black political representation since Reconstruction. These rulings, Farias argues, prioritize partisan politics over anti-discrimination principles.
"What this decision says is that it values partisan politics over discrimination."
The shadow docket has also caused chaos, enabling profiling of individuals, threatening deportation for hundreds of thousands with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and freezing foreign aid. The supermajority led by Chief Justice Roberts, Farias contends, is a clear and present danger to constitutional democracy.
Looking ahead, the term's legacy may be one of overreach, Black disempowerment, and redistricting manipulation. If the nation hopes to preserve functioning democratic institutions, deep structural reforms—including changes to the Court itself—may be necessary.