Supreme Court Shows A Willingness To Deny Trump's 'Emergencies' — At Least For Now

Democracy advocates are cautiously optimistic. Emphasis on "cautiously."

WASHINGTON – Does the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Donald Trump’s claim that no one can challenge tariffs he imposed under an “emergency” mean that those same justices who placed the presidency above the law two years ago are now prepared to block his other, even more autocratic impulses?

Critics of Trump’s efforts to expand his powers are cautiously optimistic following Friday’s 6-3 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined with the court’s three justices appointed by Democratic presidents to rule against Trump, noting it shows a willingness to limit Trump’s claims of “emergency” authorities.

“The Supreme Court’s decision provides a roadmap for how the new left-right court majority intends to check Trump’s unlawful abuses of power,” said Norm Eisen, a lawyer in Barack Obama’s White House. “The opinion resoundingly rejects Trump’s contention that courts cannot review a president’s declaration of an emergency.”

Robert Kagan, a neoconservative scholar who served in Ronald Reagan’s State Department and stands among the most strident voices warning of a Trump dictatorship, was less sanguine.

“The fact that they were willing to do this is better than if they had gone the other way. Does it mean they are ready to step in on something like an election dispute?” he wondered. “If the administration claims foreign involvement and national security? If there are disputes about ballots? I can still see them delaying or punting on those questions.”