America's secret police and 'shadow' court

Gordon L. Weil

1. Lt. Columbo, one of the most famous television police officers, always identified himself and showed his credentials.  There’s a reason that police officers wear badges, so it was routine for him and almost all officers to identify themselves.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect people from an overzealous government that might trample on their “inalienable rights.”  The badge identifies the police to a person who they approach and gives that person a means to take action against an abuse of their authority.  It can limit arbitrary police action and promote accountability.

But agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement show no identification, even wearing no insignia on their uniforms.  This American secret police wears face masks.  It is impossible to know if a person is being accosted by an authorized law enforcement agent or a thug.  ICE says they need to be protected from illegal immigrants.  Children?  University graduate students? People asking who they are and risking arrest for impeding them?

This looks remarkably like a policy that says a national emergency allows the government to ignore the Constitution.  That document is not meant only for use on sunny days; it’s meant for any day.

2. President Trump is hailed for getting NATO allies to agree to match the American spending of five percent of GDP on defense.  The U.S. is a continental nation, unlike all NATO members except Canada.  It must maintain a two-ocean defense plus a presence elsewhere.  That’s not true for Belgium or Spain.  Maybe one size does not fit all.

Besides, five percent, like so many other rules, is based on the number of fingers on the human hand.  When Spain says it can meet the alliance’s obligations applying to it, but at a lower cost, the NATO Secretary General, a total Trump fan, flatly says they can’t.  That raises the question if member countries even have specific military obligations to the alliance or just a budget commitment to keep Trump satisfied and on board.  Maybe we don’t have to see them, but we need evidence they exist.

3. Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of only three GOP senators to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill.  Her risk-taking deserves credit.

Some of her Maine critics allege that she takes on the president when she knows it won’t influence the outcome.  Did she know that Alaska’s Murkowski, normally her ally, would vote for the bill?

Collins is proud to chair the once-powerful Appropriations Committee, a post which requires her to show GOP loyalty.  But her committee was entirely bypassed by the OBBB.  It had no visible say on any appropriations in the bill; Collins was just another face in the Republican crowd.

North Carolina’s GOP Sen. Thom Tillis was so unhappy with Washington events, that he chose not to run next year for a third term.  Collins seems to be moving toward seeking a sixth term, more than any senator from Maine has ever had.  Her place in history might be better if she showed more independence and either chose not to run or accepted the risk of defeat.  Margaret Chase Smith is well remembered, but she lost her last race for the Senate.

4. Trump likes to count people like the leaders of Russia, China and North Vietnam as his friends.  Maybe he thinks that will flatter them.  Maybe he thinks that, in his select group of friends, he will be respected and get results.  For him, world politics is personal.

He may be missing out on history.  The other chiefs are not wheeling and dealing; they are pursuing centuries-old goals and relationships.  Trump simply does not have the educational background to know where they are coming from.  He does not get results as he might in a purely business deal.

Maybe the authoritarians think they can string him along so that they can pursue their ambitions without his interference?  We’ve heard of the “fog of war.”  How about their “fog of false friendship?”

5. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a select group of five Norwegians.  Often, the Prize reflects the idealism of Alfred Nobel or the political values of Norway.  For example, the 1935 Prize went to an imprisoned German journalist who had been critical of illegal Nazi rearmament.  And it doesn’t usually go to peace mediators, but rather to the parties that have agreed to make peace.  Negotiations are rewarded more often than surrenders after being bombed.

Trump has been nominated for the Prize by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant to face charges of responsibility for war crimes.

Taking this all together, it’s doubtful Trump will be invited to Oslo in December.

6. A Supreme Court “shadow docket” decision just allowed Trump to reorganize the federal government and lay off thousands of workers until such time as the Court decides if what he has done was allowed by law.  By that time, Trump will have reshaped the government without congressional approval, in effect overriding its decisions.

Thus, what is served up as a procedural decision, overriding the detailed analysis by a district court without providing any substance, has the effect of a major ruling.  In the unlikely case that the Supreme Court were persuaded by the lower court’s ultimate ruling, its decision would amount to locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.

Either it should have taken the case, heard arguments, and made a reasoned decision or it should have left the temporary stay in place until the district court did its job.  That court could have been given a limited time to produce an appealable decision. Instead, the Supreme Court continued rubberstamping presidential actions without any sign of serious consideration.

The shadow docket – decisions without reasons – are a cause for public losing confidence in the Court.

Biden, if he had determined that he was retiring after one term, might have tried to restore some balance to the Court by “packing” it?  Instead, he was sure he would win, so did nothing to undermine what he thought was his popularity. 

Budget bill aims to deceive voters

 

Gordon L. Weil

In 2017, the Trump tax bill cut both personal and business income taxes.  The reduction came at a high cost to the U.S. Treasury, boosting the national debt.

To reduce the effect, the tax cuts for individuals were slated to expire this year.  If Trump were elected to a second term, individual rates would increase after he left office.  He would “rent” political support and left it to the 2024 campaign to see if candidates would “buy” and make the lower taxes permanent.  That would have a cost, but not on his watch.

By this year, people had become accustomed to the new tax rates.  Political reality required extending the individual rates to parallel the business rates.  Republicans asserted the extension would be painless in terms of the federal debt.  Though Trump says readopting the individual rates is part of the nation’s largest tax cut, he also denies it’s a tax cut when it comes to the debt.

The 2017 tax changes were made permanent in the One, Big, Beautiful, Bill.  The Republicans found a way to make it seem that the change came at no cost.   They claim that the original reduction increased debt, but the mere extension beyond its scheduled end added nothing more.

If that lie were true, then why was the individual tax cut set for a limited period in 2017?  Then, the concern was limiting growth in the national debt. Now, that growth will be built in, but the GOP will say that reviving a tax cut that was due to expire to relieve the debt, won’t add to it.

This process revealed two major elements of Trump tax policy.  Set changes in the tax laws with delays that will cushion their costly effects until after the next election.  It’s an application of Lincoln’s saying: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time.”

The second element is that the American government now assumes the responsibility for establishing the laws of economics.  When you can tell the people that the national debt will grow larger, but that’s not an increase, the government has reached the point where it can create a new reality.

This obviously works for the solid GOP government. The OBBB contains many provisions that have timers attached.  Benefits come quickly and could appeal to voters next year, though the timers would end the changes later. Wanna bet?

Here are some key timers:

● Big boost in exemption for state and local taxes – for five years

● No taxes on tips – until 2028

● Tax break on auto loans – 2025-2028

● Increased tax deduction for seniors – until 2028

● Trump child saving subsidy – 2025-2028

● Phase-out of wind and solar subsidies – delayed a year

● Border spending – increase by ten times, but over five-year period.

It’s easy to see that some of these timers are meant to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises but are not now expected to outlast him by much.  This includes taxes on tips and auto loans.  As for his promise not to tax Social Security, while its leaders claim that it’s included, it did not happen.  The increased seniors exemption, a partial substitute, is also subject to a timer.

Without congressional approval and with the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, Trump is changing longstanding understandings of how the government works.  As previously noted, this resets the constitutional clock and creates a new original for which there will be a new originalism.

When it comes to the economy, only one institution stands in the way.  The Federal Reserve, established in 1914, is expressly meant to serve independently. 

Its seven members are appointed for 14-year terms, long enough to withstand the political pressures of even a person serving as president over a 12-year period, like Trump.  Policy is set by a 12-member body that includes representatives chosen by regional Federal Reserve banks.

The government’s economic policy takes two forms.  The political branches set fiscal policy – government spending, taxation and debt.  The Fed sets monetary policy – controlling inflation and limiting unemployment.  Fiscal management is subject to review by the voters; monetary policy is left to the independent Fed non-political, economic experts.

Seeking to gain control of the Fed, Trump would oust Fed Chair Jerome Powell, but can’t.  Trump will appoint a successor next year, but Powell can remain on the Fed Board.  And, even with a new chief, Trump could not count on other Fed leaders falling in line.

While it is turning control over independent agencies over to Trump, the Supreme Court stresses the Fed’s independence from the executive.

Lincoln concluded, “you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”   Trump may be content to “fool enough of the people, enough of the time.”

 

U.S. under one-person rule

 

Gordon L. Weil

On July 4, 1776, a group of representatives of a new country they called the United States declared that all men (not only citizens or a subset of them) are equal and have the same human rights.  And it’s up to democratic governments to ensure these rights.  (Of course, “men” would come to mean “people.”)

Now, 249 years later, the United States obviously remains a work in progress. Some may believe it is reverting to the political system that existed before the Declaration was published.  Earlier, I compared the actions of President Trump to King George III, as listed in the Declaration of Independence. 

With the federal government under the control of Trump and Congress, which is entirely dominated by his supporters, only the judiciary, the third branch of the government, could give hope to doubters about the Republican regime.  But that looks to be a false hope.

Trump ordered that, despite express constitutional language and Supreme Court precedent, not all people born in the U.S. are citizens.  He wants to exclude children of illegal residents.  Asked to rule on Trump’s order, the Court avoided making a decision.  After a delay of 30 days, it left him the ability to strip people of their citizenship.

The Court failed to rule on birthright citizenship, and it may not issue a decision for many months, possibly even a year.  Instead, it focused on banning any U.S. district court from issuing a “universal injunction” that suspends an executive action nationwide, while the federal courts consider its legality.  Now, only the Supreme Court itself may issue such an injunction.

Such cases may take weeks or months to get to the Supreme Court and, meanwhile, the president can apply his edict.  People will be harmed, perhaps permanently.  Children will be born in the U.S. who may be stateless.  In some states, injunctions will remain, so there will be a patchwork instead of a single federal birthright standard.

The Court’s decision produced a scholarly study of universal injunctions in the 18th Century.  That does not sound political, though the result favored Trump.  When such injunctions were used against then-President Biden’s executive orders, the Court never gave them a second thought.

One door was left open for the federal district courts.  If a court certified a complaint as a class action – raising the same issue for people in the same situation as the plaintiff – then the court might issue a universal injunction.  Of course, a court’s approval of a class action would be challenged by the president, potentially adding to the delay before a final decision.

If all requests for a universal injunction in a major case must be decided by the Supreme Court, it could be quite busy.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion reassuringly said that the Court could handle its increased workload.  Interestingly, no other justices said they agreed with him.  Delays seem inevitable.

The Court was preoccupied by the injunction question.  It skipped the real focus of the case: can Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship be squared with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent?  It dodged the question that demanded an answer.  The result was Trump’s unchecked view could apply in many parts of the country.

This week also brought the passage of a destructive and costly budget bill, ardently sought by Trump so he could congratulate himself on July Fourth.  He offered administrative concessions to wavering GOP House members and eked out barely enough votes to accompany the tie- breaking Senate vote of the Vice President.  He did it without a single Democratic vote.

Any civics lesson on government teaches about the three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Today, all three are under the control or influence of one person.

Though public opinion polls are questionable, they broadly show that a majority of Americans do not agree with or even respect the three branches of their government.  By manipulating historic understandings about constitutional government, a minority has gained control.   That minority is trying to reshape the system to entrench itself.

The three branches act on behalf of the ultimate authority in the American government.  The Constitution’s first words name it – “We, the people.”

The United States is a democracy; the people rule.  Trump may believe that he can dazzle people with his showmanship, but the nation depends on their taking charge.  The key is participation and the time is now, as the 2026 elections come into view.

My long-time readers may recall I have a favorite saying from a cartoon character who reshaped an 1813 American battle report.  Pogo Possum proclaimed, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If you don’t like what’s happening and do nothing, it’s your fault.

Happy Independence Day.

Big Beautiful Bill opponents: right thing for right reason

 

Gordon L. Weil

If you oppose him, it isn’t like swimming against the tide.  It’s like swimming against a tsunami.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, President’s Trumps hoped-for legislative triumph, will happen in some form.  He probably doesn’t care what form, so long as it happens.  If you get in his way, you may be drowned.

Two senators opposed the bill for the right reason.  It would deprive hundreds of thousands of people in both of their states of Medicaid, health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.  Trump has promised to protect Medicaid, but the only way he could get the tax cuts he wanted had to come at its expense.

Thom Tillis, the Republican senator from North Carolina, could not accept that 663,000 people from his state would lose health care coverage.  Trump’s response was to attack him and threaten to have a MAGA candidate challenge him in the GOP primary next year.

Tillis stuck to his position and said he would not run for reelection.  His move might be interpreted as giving in to threats, but he made it clear that he was tired of the loss of bipartisanship in Congress.  He preferred to walk away from political extremism, just as had Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe.  There must be more to life than constant conflict.

That made Tillis’ decision the right thing to do and for the right reason.

He will leave after serving two terms in the Senate.  If time in government is meant to be public service rather than building a career in politics, his decision amounted to a self-imposed term limit. 

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, voted against the OBBB, mainly because of its harmful effect on 400,000 Maine people.  She tried to amend the bill to deal with the problem, but was soundly defeated with only a few poor states helping her.   After that, because she’s up for re-election next year, her vote in opposition was a good political move.

Trump had little chance of opposing Collins, so she could afford to take a stand against him. At 72, she should be retiring after five terms, but, unlike Tillis, she wants to stay.  Supporting him would have made her more vulnerable to a Democratic challenger.    

Tillis did the right thing for the right reason.  While hoping for a political reward, Collins also did the right thing.  Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, usually a Collins ally, was bought off by adding even more debt to the deal.

A word must be written about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the third GOP senator to break with the president.  He opposes increasing the federal debt, which the OBBB not only did, but used dishonest accounting.  He stuck to principles closely identified with him and refused to be swept under by Trump’s tidal wave.  He showed integrity.

In the end, that’s what it boils down to.  The disastrous and dishonest OBBB, a jumble of conservative causes piling up more debt, led some members of Congress who could have resisted Trump and forced through a better bill to abandon their integrity.

Trump’s unchecked power ending ‘the normal balance’

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president of the United States announced that, facing a “national emergency,” he needed “broad Executive power,” departing from “the normal balance between the executive and legislative authority.”

“The people of the United States … have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action,” he said, asserting that they had picked him for task.

These words reflect the thinking of Donald Trump, though not his speaking style.  For good reason. These are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933. 

Trump may have an influence on national and world events that we have not seen exercised by any one person since FDR.

Though their policies would be enormously different, both changed the nation and the world, overthrowing conventional wisdom and practice.  And both acted boldly and swiftly.

In three elections, Trump has never won a majority of the popular vote, while FDR gained big popular majorities in four elections.  FDR drew power from his big victories and good, if sometimes fractured, support from a Democratic Congress.  Trump draws his power from an intensely loyal Republican Congress and a claimed strong electoral mandate.

His power stems from his extraordinary public outreach and from a Supreme Court decision recognizing almost unlimited presidential powers.  Using the Court’s broad grant of powers, Trump has reshaped the American political system and international affairs.  Trump continually pushes to see if any limits remain on his power.

“To prove this, let facts be submitted.”

He has reduced the size of government, and has virtually eliminated entire agencies. Programs, like foreign aid and consumer credit protection, are almost gone, contrary to the law and without congressional approval.  In effect, he has established the dominant role of the president over the Congress.

He is ending independent regulation, in existence since the 19th Century, by revoking rules and firing regulators.  Courts have approved his departure from longstanding precedents and practices.

He has ignored constitutional due process protections applying to non-citizens so that a daily target of 3,000 expulsions of illegal foreign residents could become possible.  His agencies have uprooted peaceful and productive people, going well beyond his promise to deport criminals first. 

He has also imposed his values and beliefs without regard for traditions and the views of others.  His opposition to recognizing racism and to diversity in hiring and public speech, even in the private sector and universities, and his watering down of Civil War history has opened old wounds.

He has used his office for personal gain from his business interests to a greater extent than any other president.  In the process, he has modified the accepted standards controlling political corruption.

He uses tariffs as a readily available tool to force others to reduce their exports, promoting increased U.S. production.  Though excessive tariffs punish both the exporter and the importer, Trump believes the U.S. trade deficit results from other countries taking unfair advantage. 

He claims to raise tariffs in response to a national emergency, but his frequent and impulsive adjustments show they are a bargaining tool rather than a way to meet an existing crisis.  He has reshaped world trade, forcing other countries to replace U.S. ties with new relationships and to buttress their own self-sufficiency.

He has forced friendly countries to reduce their defense reliance on the U.S., sometimes demeaning them and their leaders.  At his urging, they increase both their military budgets and their independence from the U.S., eroding American influence.  The split between the U.S. and Europe in dealing with Russia’s war on Ukraine is a sign of future divergence.

He is also changing the role of the military.  Despite laws and traditions to the contrary, it has begun to take on law enforcement responsibilities.  This allows him to bypass state authority.

He has stunningly transformed the American system of government by exploiting popular sentiment that can be led to abandon policies and values of FDR’s New Deal and post-World War II liberalism.  In serving his ambition, his authoritarianism eats away at democracy.

He has ignored constitutional norms so that he may be creating a new originalism from which the country must restart its political evolution.  This effort must yet be tested by courts, subjected to the political process and influenced by other nations.

This list of his unchecked actions directly parallels the list of “usurpations” composing the indictment of the British king in the Declaration of Independence, whose 249th anniversary the nation is about to observe.

The Declaration was the voice of strong and united opposition to unlimited executive rule.  The new Americans took great risks, personal and political, to resist.  They compromised their differences to reach unity on a common goal.

Today, simply proclaiming “No Kings” is not enough.  On the Fourth of July, the Founders offered a bold and coherent alternative.  That’s what is missing now.

Will U.S. bombing of Iran pay off?

 

Gordon L. Weil

When the B-2 bombers took off from Missouri on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran, that was not the beginning of the direct conflict between the two countries.

It began in August 1953 and continues.  President Trump may have seen the bombing only as an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but it was part of an historic confrontation. 

In 1953, the CIA led an effort that toppled the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.  He had nationalized the oil industry, stripping British and American interests of their control, and was also seen as a threat to the stability imposed upon the Middle East following World War II.  

The Shah, the country’s nominal ruler, had American backing to take control of the government in Tehran.  But the coup brought deep Iranian resentment of the U.S., which falsely denied the CIA’s role.  Iranian militants opposed the Shah who had appropriated some of the nation’s wealth for his own use.

Eventually, the Shah was forced into exile and fell ill.  The Iranian opposition sought his return to face judgment, but he was granted access to health care in the U.S.  Infuriated, in 1979 militants turned a street demonstration into the occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile, became Supreme Leader of Iran’s refashioned Islamic State, and approved the occupation.  The new regime labelled the U.S. as the “Great Satan.”  Even after Iran freed the embassy hostages, its conflict with the U.S. intensified.

Iran detested American backing of Israel.  It saw Israel as gaining power in the Middle East, at the expense of fellow Muslims and undercutting its own plans for power in the region.  Israel saw Iran as its major regional threat.  Iran considered the U.S. and Israel as a common enemy.

Iran extended its war against Israel by arming and supporting hostile forces all around it: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi in Yemen.  Its growing power moved it toward regional domination.

Iran’s economic strength comes from its oil exports.  It claimed that it would develop nuclear power to free up more oil for export.  As a non-weapons state, it subscribed to the Nonproliferation Treaty and accepted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

But Iran enriched uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.  Under pressure, it agreed with leading world powers to limit its enrichment for a fixed period but could continue to develop missiles capable of delivering atomic devices.

Trump condemned that accord and in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from it.  Iran stepped up enrichment, getting close to weapons grade.  IAEA inspections were hampered and, at last, it formally voted that Iran was not obeying its treaty obligations.

Soon after Russia failed to win rapid victory over Ukraine in 2023, Iran supplied it with drones and even technical help on the ground.  The Russian attack sought to regain control over Ukraine to prevent it from joining with the West, which aligned with Iran’s anti-American objectives.

Trying to reduce nuclear threats, Trump tried to coax North Korea, also long hostile to the U.S., to give up its nuclear weapons, but failed to charm Kim Jong-Un..  Like Iran, North Korea drew closer to Russia and assists it in the Ukraine War. 

European nations and Canada joined in Trump’s determination not to allow the emergence of Iran as another nuclear state.

Some foreign leaders preferred more negotiations, despite a dismal record, instead of the bombing and its unknowable consequences.  But if unproductive talks went on, the closer Iran might come to being a nuclear power.  And Iran had not shown itself to be negotiating either realistically or in good faith.  So, Trump chose to act.

Given Iran’s ongoing hostility to the U.S, its enmity toward Israel, its growing relationship with Russia and its deceit about its intentions, Trump’s move to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is understandable, though opposed by many Americans who are wary of war.  Arguing about the effectiveness of the bombing is pointless; the result will become apparent enough. 

What comes next?  Will Iran finally recognize that it must abandon any possibility of having nuclear weapons, perhaps only possible after a regime change, or will it continue to threaten Middle East stability.  If Iran persists in denying that its territory and nuclear development are vulnerable, Trump faces a choice.  

Negotiations might lead to a new agreement like the one he rejected, with enrichment limited indefinitely and limits placed on missiles.  In return, Iran would get eased economic sanctions and new foreign investment.

Without a negotiated deal, the alternative would be an unpopular, prolonged American military confrontation with Iran, perhaps even in a wider conflict.

 

 

 

Does Trump act legally?

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a war going on.

This one’s not Ukraine or the Middle East.  It’s the quiet war being fought in the courts that could have a direct effect on many, if not all, Americans.  It’s major decision time for the Supreme Court, and it could set limits on the Trump regime or approve how it governs.

By June 19, at least 285 federal cases had been brought against the Trump administration by people and institutions claiming to have been harmed by government actions they argue violate the Constitution and laws.  President Trump’s executive orders since his inauguration (at least 163) have set a record, but so have challenges to them.

The federal courts are entangled in resolving complaints that the president has gone too far.  Has he violated the Constitution?

Here’s how the system works as Trump cases move up to the Court. 

A legal action is begun in one of the 94 federal district courts.  Because the court must issue a reasoned judgment in each case, it may suspend the Trump move by issuing an injunction until the judge can reach a conclusion.  The Justice Department may not wait and instead go to one of 13 courts of appeal to get that suspension lifted.  Or it may go directly to the Supreme Court.

If an injunction is lifted, the plaintiff, possibly harmed by the Trump-Musk actions, may be left jobless or slated for expulsion from the country.  Entire agencies may be functionally abolished.  But decisions may take months and meanwhile, the Trump policy would remain in effect. 

District courts judges may make careful decisions on the legality of Trump’s actions after early hearings and prompt rulings.  If they decide against the president, he then requests that their injunctions should be suspended while appeals are considered.

When a court lifts a court suspension on Trump or grants him one, it will usually rely on a finding that Trump is likely to win when the case is decided.  Thus, a case may be finally decided procedurally by allowing it to go into effect even if it has not reached a formal decision that itself could be appealed and take more time.

The Supreme Court often uses this so-called procedural “shadow docket.”   In the current term beginning last October, it has issued 102 such decisions, not all on Trump, but only 57 formal opinions. 

By the time a final decision is made, the plaintiff may have been expelled from the country or lost their job.  University-based scientific research might have been halted.   An innocent person may have been held in harsh detention.  Yet no court has acted against any government official who violated a direct court order protecting a person’s due process right.

The Supreme Court is now in the final days of its current term.   As usual, it has left some of its most important decisions until the end, though this dramatic delay may be artificial.  Here are some key points to watch for.

Chief Justice Roberts likes to emphasize that the Court stays out of politics. He may find ways to agree with Trump, while avoiding making major decisions.  He threads his way along procedural paths that make decisions look both narrow and legally unquestionable. The result can confirm the Trump policy without saying so.

The Court may appear to make decisions giving satisfaction to both sides.  This may happen in the landmark decision expected on birthright citizenship.  Trump claims that, despite a clear statement in the Constitution, his administration can use a provision designed to exempt the children of foreign diplomats to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal entrants.

It would be surprising if the Court agreed with Trump.  But it has signaled that it is focusing on the ability of a single district court to make a ruling of a nationwide effect, as happened in this case.  This has frequently happened to Trump orders.  The Court could give some comfort to Trump by somehow pulling back on the district courts’ powers.

A recent appeals court decision, by a panel with a majority of his appointees, rejected his claim that his powers are so absolute that the court should not even hear a case.  Even though it approved his actions, it said that the president must obey the laws enacted by Congress.   

The Court might narrow the scope of its broad grant of presidential powers, given in Trump v. U.S. last July.  Undoubtedly, Trump uses that decision as his basis for ignoring the Constitution and laws when issuing his executive orders.  Or the Court could boost his powers, by reinforcing its earlier decisions that he can fire members of independent regulatory bodies. 

In the next ten days, the Supreme Court could bring the war in the courts to a new level.