As the Supreme Court closes out its term, serious concerns have emerged regarding its handling of cases involving the Trump administration’s policies.
Recent rulings have allowed critical state and federal actions without effectively addressing their legality, raising fears about the Court’s commitment to upholding the law.
On Thursday, the Court granted South Carolina the authority to deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, ignoring the federal statute that mandates such funding.
The federal Medicaid Act clearly states that states must provide funds to any eligible individual from a qualified provider, yet South Carolina terminated funding for Planned Parenthood specifically due to its association with abortion services.
This blatantly violates federal law, which requires states to ensure available medical assistance through qualified providers without political bias.
However, the Supreme Court didn’t confront the legality of this state action.
Instead, it relied on a convoluted interpretation, claiming that the Medicaid statute does not create a ‘right’ because it lacks the explicit word ‘right.’
This ruling means that South Carolina can continue violating federal law, and patients or service providers such as Planned Parenthood are left with no recourse to challenge these unlawful actions in court.
On the following day, the Court issued a decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., allowing the Trump administration to move forward with an executive order that threatens to undermine the constitutionally guaranteed right of birthright citizenship.
The executive order sought to exclude certain U.S.-born individuals from citizenship based on their parents’ legal status.
Multiple federal courts had previously issued nationwide injunctions against this policy, unanimously agreeing that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationality Act of 1940.
Despite these firm rulings, the Supreme Court opted not to address the constitutionality of the executive order, limiting the injunctions to specific plaintiffs rather than reaffirming the rights of all affected individuals.
Instead, the Court’s ruling effectively leaves thousands of individuals born in the U.S. vulnerable to losing their citizenship unless they pursue individual lawsuits.
With an average of over a quarter-million babies born annually on U.S. soil, the implications of this ruling could be profound, stripping citizenship from many American-born children.
The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which focused on procedural aspects rather than the essence of the executive order, demonstrates a troubling trend in the Court’s decision-making.
Justice Barrett noted that the ‘birthright citizenship issue is not before us,’ deferring any substantive examination of the executive order’s legality to a hypothetical future case.
This sidestep raises critical questions: If not the courts, then who is responsible for holding the executive branch accountable for overreach?
The sheer avoidance of addressing substantive constitutional violations by the Court could set a dangerous precedent.
Using doctrines of standing and balance-of-power analytics to limit judicial intervention is not inherently problematic.
However, when these principles shield egregious governmental misconduct, it tarnishes the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
Critics now perceive a pattern of political activism influencing the Court’s decisions, particularly towards President Trump’s controversial policies.
As the Court continues to issue rulings that prioritize procedural barriers over constitutional protections, the future remains uncertain.
Many hope that the Court will encounter cases in which it cannot evade accountability for significant legal violations orchestrated by the Trump administration.
Nonetheless, until that time arrives, the ruling sets the stage for a concerning reality: a government empowered to execute policies that threaten fundamental rights without judicial oversight.
This includes the potential for the administration to deport individuals to unstable countries, deny essential health care, and strip American-born children of their citizenship.
The implications of these decisions challenge the very fabric of legal accountability and constitutional rights in the United States.
image source from：thebulwark
