The Supreme Court’s Biggest Test Yet Will the court codify Trump’s power grab? Dan Rather and Team Steady Oct 6 Credit: Getty Images There has never been a more consequential term for the United States Supreme Court. Today, like every first Monday in October, is the start of the court’s new term. But never, in all my years of watching the court, have there been so many cases that could so radically change America and give Donald Trump even more power in the process. The court is stacked with justices who have repeatedly given the green light to Trump. So, it is a tenuous time for those who see it as the last check on a White House that grows more brazen by the day. Bottom line: the court will decide how much of Donald Trump’s executive power grab is legal. It feels as though the court has ruled on many of Trump’s actions since January 20, because it has, but only on a temporary basis. The court was in the middle of its last term when Trump took office, so its more than a dozen Trump-related rulings were temporary, issued in response to the administration’s multiple emergency requests. This is what is referred to as a “shadow docket.” Most of the decisions have allowed Trump to proceed until the court can take up the actual cases. Up to this point the court has not directly dealt with the legality of Trump’s executive orders, his directives, or his policies. But over the next several months the justices will hear arguments in multiple cases concerning Trump, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the scope of presidential power. Questioning Tariff Legitimacy The biggest case before the court has to do with Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The court will decide if Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are an illegal use of emergency authority or if the billions the Treasury Department has collected will have to be refunded. “It is a staggeringly important case from an economic perspective and from a separation of powers perspective,” Hofstra Law professor James Sample tells ABC News. “If you think of a tariff as a tax, this is one of the biggest tax hikes in American history, and it didn’t go through Congress at all,” he added. Politically Motivated Firings The court will also decide if Trump was within his rights to fire Democratic members of once-independent federal agencies. The firing of the head of the Federal Trade Commission upended a 90-year precedent forbidding the firing of career bureaucrats without cause. The justices will decide if Trump can fire Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook. Allowing these firings and overturning a decades-old standard that protects the autonomy and independence of federal agencies would have far-reaching — and not in a good way — implications for future administrations. Birthright Citizenship In Jeopardy One of Trump’s first executive orders attempted to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. The Trump administration has asked the court to rule on the constitutionality of its executive order, even though lower court after lower court ruled against it. The justices will also hear arguments in cases dealing with voting rights, free speech, and mental health care. While not yet on the Supreme Court docket, another complex case involving multiple states and their governors unfolded over the weekend. It will likely head to the court as well. A Police State in the Making Trump has decided that Portland, Oregon is plagued by “anarchists” and “crazy people… trying to burn down buildings.” Some believe he got this notion from a Fox “News” special report in September that showed Portland besieged by protestors. Except that the footage Fox used was five years old. In reality, the ongoing protests at a single Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, two miles from downtown Portland, have been small and largely peaceful. On social media Trump directed the Department of Defense “to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.” Since far-right activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Trump has ratcheted up his rhetoric, calling for a coordinated crackdown on “left wing terrorism.” In this case, he attempted to take over command of the Oregon National Guard and send them to Portland. On Saturday, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued a stern ruling against Trump, disallowing the deployment of the Oregon Guard. She said there is no evidence that the Portland protests were “significantly violent or disruptive.” In her ruling, Judge Immergut included a prescient quote from Founding Father James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence [against] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and architect of the administration’s draconian immigration policy, hyperbolically reprimanded Judge Immergut on social media. “The President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, not an Oregon judge… This is an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers, and the deployment of troops is an absolute necessity to defend our personnel, our laws, our government, public order and the Republic itself.” The administration tried to sidestep the ruling by ordering 200 National Guard troops from California to Oregon, against the express wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. Together the governors filed suit against the Trump administration, charging that the use of out-of-state troops without their consent is an illegal abuse of presidential power. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power by the President of the United States. America is on the brink of martial law,” Newsom said on social media. Judge Immergut didn’t take kindly to Trump’s maneuverings. On Sunday she issued a second, broader restraining order to cover “the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon.” She admonished Justice Department lawyers, warning that the president was “in direct contravention” of her order. In yet another attempt to circumvent a direct legal order, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a letter on Sunday evening, calling up 400 members of the Texas National Guard, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s blessing, to be deployed “where needed, including the cities of Portland and Chicago.” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s reaction was immediate. “We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” he said in a statement. On Monday morning, Illinois filed suit to block the National Guard deployment, saying it infringed on state sovereignty and violated the Constitution. Late Monday, a federal judge sided with the Trump administration for now, by ruling not to block the Guard’s deployment to Chicago. Texas National Guard troops are expected in the city by Wednesday, according to The New York Times. No doubt this story will continue to develop as it makes its way through the courts and the government. The third branch of government, the judicial branch, has not had the same clout or cache of the directly elected executive and legislative branches. But in these perilous times, the courts will either be the last stand against autocracy or the bridge to it. Steady is free, but to support my team’s efforts to protect our democracy through the power of independent journalism, we’d appreciate it if you would consider joining as a paid subscriber. It keeps Steady sustainable and accessible for all. No matter how you subscribe, I thank you for being part of the Steady community. Stay Steady, Dan