The MAGA Supreme Court’s Assault On America

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision allowed the Trump administration to rescind Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The ruling stated that courts cannot review whether the executive branch complied with statutory requirements for ending TPS, effectively rendering these statutes unenforceable. This decision ignored evidence of racial animus, including President Trump's vile remarks about Haitian nationals, and sets a precedent for future administrations to flout legal processes without consequence.

The Trump administration failed to consult with the State Department before canceling TPS for Haiti, and emails suggest a predetermined outcome. President Trump made 'vile, horrible, grotesque things about Haitian nationals,' which Justice Alito's opinion did not even recite, instead declaring them 'not overtly racial.' Justice Kagan's dissent highlighted that the ruling effectively tells the executive branch, 'you can put these people on the next plane and send them off.'

Another 6-3 Supreme Court decision redefined 'arrive' in asylum law, stating that individuals stopped outside the physical borders of the United States are not considered to have 'arrived' and are therefore not entitled to claim asylum or have their claims assessed. This creates a loophole allowing the executive branch to turn away asylum seekers wholesale, pushing them towards more dangerous, illegal entry methods.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent pointed out that this ruling 'creates a giant loophole' and 'tells the executive branch so long as you physically block people from entering the United States, you do not have to consider their asylum applications.' The case originated from a 'metering policy' that was no longer in effect, indicating the Court proactively paved the way for future callous immigration policies.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against a suit claiming Monsanto's Roundup weed killer caused cancer due to insufficient warning labels. The Court determined that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives the EPA sole authority over pesticide labels, prioritizing uniformity and EPA expertise over state-level lawsuits for inadequate warnings. This decision, while specific to FIFRA, contributes to a broader pattern of the Roberts Court insulating corporations from liability.

The case focused on FIFRA, a federal law granting the EPA authority to regulate pesticides and approve their labels. The Court found that private parties or states cannot impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has warranted. Justice Kagan and Sotomayor joined the majority, while Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented. This ruling will lead to the dismissal of other similar lawsuits against Monsanto.

A pending Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, challenging an executive order purporting to deny citizenship to some U.S.-born individuals, raises significant concerns despite the 14th Amendment's clear language. The delay in the decision and recent broad rulings in other immigration cases suggest a non-unanimous outcome, potentially altering the Overton window for constitutional interpretation and inviting future challenges based on racist tropes.

The 14th Amendment states, 'all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens.' Potential legal arguments against birthright citizenship include equating unauthorized immigration to an 'invasion' (similar to children of invading armies) or broadly interpreting exceptions for foreign diplomats to swallow the general rule, resting on racist tropes about allegiance.

Two pending cases address the President's power to fire heads of independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Reserve Board. If the Court grants the President near-plenary power to fire these officials without cause, it would allow the executive to control agencies with sweeping regulatory powers over government contracts, antitrust law, and the economy, effectively politicizing their functions.

One case questions the constitutionality of Congress limiting the President's ability to fire heads of multi-member commissions (like the FTC) 'for cause.' The other involves the President's attempt to fire a Federal Reserve Board governor, despite a bespoke exception for the Fed in a previous unitary executive theory ruling. Such a decision would empower the President to 'give murderers to his friends and penalize his enemies.'

A Supreme Court decision is expected on state laws banning transgender athletes from participating in sports, with a 'very bleak' outlook. The Court is likely to uphold these bans as consistent with Title IX, and potentially rule that such laws are constitutional or even required, further eroding equal protection rights for trans individuals and setting a precedent for broader discrimination in education and other areas.

During oral arguments, the federal government's lawyer referred to trans athletes as 'males who take performance enhancing drugs.' The expectation is that the six Republican appointees will find these state laws consistent with Title IX. The 'best we can hope for' is the case being sent back for additional fact-finding, rather than an outright constitutional endorsement of discrimination.

The Supreme Court is considering a Mississippi law allowing a 5-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day. A ruling against this practice, challenged by the RNC, could nullify or change vote counting in 29 states, creating widespread voter confusion and potential suppression just months before the midterms. Such a decision could also invite further challenges to established voting practices, including early voting.

The RNC argues that a federal law establishing Election Day as the first Tuesday in November prohibits states from counting ballots received afterward, even if postmarked by Election Day. This interpretation would destabilize current election administration and disenfranchise voters, particularly military members serving overseas whose ballots often arrive after Election Day.

A pending campaign finance case, challenging coordination limits between political parties and candidates, could be the most significant decision since Citizens United. If the Court strikes down contribution limits, it would allow billionaires and corporations to donate unlimited funds directly to candidates, further concentrating political power in the hands of the wealthy and eroding the integrity of elections.

The case involves the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) as the plaintiff. If coordination limits are deemed unconstitutional, it would effectively remove the last vestige of campaign finance law, opening a pathway for unlimited direct contributions from individuals to candidates, bypassing existing limits on individual donations.