Landmark Rulings by Supreme Court Redefine Presidential Power and Agency Authority by pedro graterol
The Supreme Court’s end-of-term rulings grant Trump immunity from prosecution for official acts and limit agency deference under the Chevron doctrine.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued two significant rulings near the end of its term that present some of the most drastic changes in American politics and governance in recent history. These decisions address the immunity of former President Donald Trump from prosecution for official acts, which brings seismic changes to the power of the office of the president, and the reinterpretation of agency deference under the Chevron doctrine, an obscure administrative hallmark of governance that potentially reshapes government agencies’ abilities to execute their work.
The first case, Trump vs. USA, concerns former President Trump, who is the Republican nominee and has been the subject of a wide variety of legal problems that range from hush payments to election subversion. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” a term which is not clearly defined in the majority opinion written by Justice John Roberts. This ruling stems from allegations related to the 2020 election interference, meaning Trump is unlikely to face trial in Washington before the upcoming November elections. While the court did not dismiss the charges against Trump outright, it effectively shields him from significant parts of the prosecution led by special counsel Jack Smith. This decision has immediate implications: the trial, which began in March, is now likely to be postponed until after the elections. In addition, it clearly allows for Trump to potentially appoint a new attorney general who might dismiss the case or even pardon himself if he wins the presidency.
The decision leaves the definition of an “official act” ambiguous, complicating future prosecutions of former presidents. Now, the case goes back to District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now scrutinize which of Trump’s actions qualify as official and thus immune from prosecution. This delay not only impacts Trump’s legal strategy but also raises concerns about presidential accountability. Critics argue that this ruling could elevate the president to a near-monarchical status, immune from certain legal consequences for actions taken while in office. These concerns were echoed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion of the court, where she argued that such immunity could lead to abuses of power and weaken democratic institutions.
This was not the only significant decision the Court released. It also overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which had mandated judicial deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. The cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce prompted the court to assert that judges must independently interpret the law, rather than rely on agency expertise, which has been the underlying principle of administrative law for decades. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, criticized Chevron as a “judicial invention” that forced judges to abdicate their responsibilities.
The implications of this decision are profound. By removing Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has effectively increased the power of the judiciary at the expense of federal agencies, whose regulatory powers are limited. Critics, including Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent, argue that this will lead to greater judicial involvement in critical policy areas traditionally managed by subject matter experts within agencies like climate change, healthcare, and technology. The Biden administration has voiced concerns that this ruling could lead to a flood of legal challenges against federal regulations, disrupting the implementation of vital programs. Chief Justice Roberts sought to reassure that existing decisions based on Chevron would remain unaffected, but Justice Kagan’s warning suggests a turbulent future with potential legal upheavals. The decision invites increased litigation against agencies like the FDA, impacting the administration of federal programs that millions of Americans rely on. As the courts become the central arena for interpreting regulatory law, the consequences of this decision will reverberate across numerous sectors.