Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
One reason that the Supreme Court gets so much power is that it’s the branch that gives reasoned explanations for why it makes the heavy decisions it does. With the shadow docket, which currently holds a majority of Supreme Court decisions, the court gives no explanations for its sometimes momentous decisions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkaMdt3Dbw
“both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District have leaned on the “major questions” doctrine. Under that legal theory, the executive branch can only exercise powers that Congress has explicitly granted. The U.S. Supreme Court invoked that doctrine in other recent high-profile cases, including the 2023 ruling that struck down then-President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme.
There is no doubt that Congress has, in fact, granted huge tariff powers to the executive branch. But the narrow question before the Supreme Court is whether the law Trump has invoked to impose these tariffs—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—grants such broad authority. The law does not contain the word “tariff” and has never been used to impose tariffs before now.”
https://reason.com/2025/09/08/trumps-tariffs-face-a-major-major-questions-problem-at-the-supreme-court/
The Supreme Court has made racial profiling legal in the case of potential immigration violations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ERPT3tZTSc
“According to Kavanaugh, it is “common sense” to allow immigration agents to seize people based on “relevant factors” such as their “apparent ethnicity” and that they “gather in certain locations to seek daily work.” As for the argument that President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration dragnet will inevitably ensnare U.S. citizens too, and thus violate their constitutional rights, Kavanaugh simply waved those worries away. “As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief,” Kavanaugh asserted, “and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.”
But the facts submitted as part of this very case undermine Kavanaugh’s breezy assertion.
…
” One agent ordered him to “Stop right there” while another “ran towards [him].” The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American—and they repeatedly ignored his answer: “I am an American.” The agents asked Gavidia what hospital he was born in—and he explained that he did not know which hospital. “The agents forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm.” An agent asked again, “What hospital were you born in?” Gavidia again explained that he did not know which hospital and said “East L.A.” He then told the agents he could show them his Real ID. The agents took Gavidia’s ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.”
Those agents did not “promptly” let this U.S. citizen go after a quick chat. Instead, they seized him and “forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm,” all while ignoring his repeated exclamations of his status as a U.S. citizen.
Kavanaugh did not mention any of those inconvenient details. But he did offer this laughable observation: “To the extent that excessive force has been used [by immigration agents], the Fourth Amendment prohibits such action, and remedies should be available in federal court.”
That observation is laughable coming from Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court’s 2022 majority opinion in Egbert v. Boule, which, as I noted at the time, “made it practically impossible to sue a federal officer over an alleged constitutional rights violation.”
In other words, when Kavanaugh was directly presented with the opportunity to ensure that “remedies” for Fourth Amendment injuries would “be available in federal court,” he did the opposite: He joined the majority in shielding abusive federal officers from facing civil suits over even the most blatant constitutional violations.”
https://reason.com/2025/09/11/kavanaugh-flaunts-the-fourth-amendment-and-blesses-trumps-racial-profiling/
“The high court’s majority offered no explanation for its decision to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to block the district judge’s order. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately in support of the decision, saying it was reasonable to briefly question people who meet multiple “common sense” criteria for possible illegal presence — including employment in day labor or construction, and limited English proficiency.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented. ”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/08/supreme-court-ice-raids-ruling-00550551
“Chief Justice John Roberts is allowing President Donald Trump to put a Joe Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission out of her post while the Supreme Court considers a longer-term resolution of the legal battle over her firing.”
So, whether it’s legal or not, Trump gets to go ahead and do it, and even if it turns out to not be legal, much damage will be done and the law ineffective.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/08/john-roberts-rebecca-slaughter-trump-firing-00550758
This Supreme Court makes many large and vague rulings, and then insults lower judges when they have trouble interpreting them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPibtWESIus
So far, the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to use powers that appear to be unconstitutional. The Court has largely done this using the shadow docket, where the court doesn’t need to explain its reasoning.
By allowing the president to create real-world and not fully reversible impacts while acting with clearly unconstitutional powers, the Supreme Court is derelict of its duty as a check on presidential power.
It makes sense to limit injunctions that stop the president when his actions may not even be found unconstitutional in the first place, but if the president can act in any way, and not be stopped until the damage is done, then the Supreme Court is derelict in its duty.
The Supreme Court can act very quickly when it wants to, and it can slow-walk when it wants. Seems like it will do this in favor of Trump and Republicans.
Trump and his associates say clearly why they are doing what they are doing, and then tell the Court that they did it for different reasons. The Court has naively accepted the administration’s legal justifications that conflict with the administration’s clearly spoken motives.
The Constitution does not take into account political parties. The founders did not expect parties when they wrote it. Parties ruin the separation of powers and cause officials to not restrain a president acting illegally, even though it is those officials’ (Congress and the Supreme Court) duty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZBLpzcYx4
“President Donald Trump overstepped the limits of executive authority when he used emergency powers to levy tariffs, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
…
the tariffs in a chaotic state of limbo. Three courts have now ruled that they were unlawfully imposed, and yet they will remain in place (at least for now).
That’s an outcome that seems to create even more uncertainty for American businesses that are bearing the brunt of the tariffs. Rather than providing relief in the form of a new or renewed injuction, the appeals court has effectively said that Trump is illegally taxing nearly all imports into the country and that Americans will have to continue paying those taxes while the rest of the legal process plays out.”
https://reason.com/2025/08/29/federal-appeals-court-says-trumps-tariffs-are-unlawful-allows-them-to-remain-in-place/
https://reason.com/2025/09/01/the-federal-circuits-tariff-ruling-highlights-the-audacity-of-trumps-power-grab/