The Supreme Court recently concluded its 236th annual term after hearing 74 cases and holding 58 oral arguments. In most cases, the nine justices did not reach unanimous agreement. Likewise, the public reaction to many of these rulings was mixed. Even scholars and academics disagreed vehemently on many decisions.
Despite public sentiment, all that matters is whether the court upheld and preserved the Constitution in its far-reaching decisions. On this benchmark, no pun intended, the Supreme Court did a splendid job.
First, the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais reinforced the constitutional principle of equal justice for all, enshrined in the 14th Amendment. It doubled down on the idea that the United States is a colorblind society.
Should race play a role in the drawing of congressional maps? That was what the court wrestled with in this case. In the end, by a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that Louisiana’s “use of race-based redistricting” for its 2022 congressional map “was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Although some claim this ruling gutted the Voting Rights Act, it supported the original intent of the 1965 civil rights law by ensuring that government does not use race as an arbitrary factor in decision-making.
Second, the court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter sustained the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and popular sovereignty. In short, the court held that the president has the power to fire executive branch employees without Congress’ express approval.
By another 6-3 vote, the court ruled, “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
Aside from cementing the president’s power to remove executive branch bureaucrats, which the Constitution clearly allows, this ruling also addresses the unconstitutional development of the deep state.
Executive branch agencies possess vast, sweeping regulatory powers, in part because the legislative branch has outsourced policymaking to these departments. According to the Constitution, Congress should make the laws. The president, via the executive branch, implements laws. Congress cannot make laws and micromanage their execution. Put simply, Congress cannot have its cake and eat it too.
Third, the court maintained its fidelity to the Constitution in its ruling in West Virginia v. BPJ, finding that schools may ban biological males from competing in women’s sports.
Again, the court preserved the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, this time under the auspices of Title IX, which states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Moreover, the court articulated that “the argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing.” In a win for federalism, the court ruled that states have the last word when it comes to who can and cannot participate in women’s sports.
Although all three of these landmark rulings certainly pass constitutional muster, the court continues to come under attack from leftists who despise the originalist interpretations held by a majority of the justices.
The Supreme Court does not make nor execute the laws. However, it has the ultimate power to determine whether those laws, and how they are executed, adhere to the high bar set by the Constitution.
I may not agree with every court decision this term. Nevertheless, I am confident that the current Supreme Court is upholding and strengthening the world’s greatest governing charter, the utmost defense of individual liberty, and the best bulwark against tyranny: the U.S. Constitution
Chris Talgo is the editorial director at The Heartland Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
