Who holds the power? The Supreme Court, the presidency, and a nation divided

By Ehsan Ibrahim

The US Supreme court issued, last week, a landmark ruling that has the potential to alter the dynamic and balance of power between branches of government in the United States of America. In a decision that, on the surface, seems to be rooted in the ongoing debate over the legitimacy and constitutionality of President Trump’s decision to issue an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship, the court's ruling declared that federal courts will have limited authority in challenging White House decision making. Though the ruling does not determine the legality of Trump’s specific order, its broader implications are hard to ignore.

Advocates have called the ruling a win for the Trump administration, and denouncers have cautioned it could undermine one of the courts' most important roles - that of a check on executive power. During a time of escalating political polarisation and the laying of stake in the national consciousness to accusations of authority, the question of increasing power in the executive branch presents problems. Is this decision an important move toward conformity and decisiveness, or is it an alarming weakening of the constitutional bounds intended to ensure one branch does not become too powerful?

So what exactly does the ruling mean for the separation of powers, and what are the

implications for American democracy, and why, no matter people's political affiliations, why does this moment deserve public vigilance.

For some, this is a long overdue clarification of presidential authority. For others, this ruling represents a step in a broader trend toward concentrating power in a centralized Executive Branch.

At the heart of the system established by the Constitution of the United States is the idea that no one branch of government should have unchecked power. Therefore, the Founding Fathers adopted a system of check and balances, and divided power between three branches of government: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. For over two hundred years, this structure has defined how the United States has governed itself, and provided limits to the actions of presidents, Congress, and Courts.

The judiciary has always been a vital check on the executive branch. The judiciary has

documented significant victories in limiting executive power in cases like United States v. Nixon (1974) where the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to release the Watergate tapes; and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) where the Court limited the power of the president to create military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. These cases emphasised the judiciary's unique role of interpreting the Constitution while serving as a check on presidential power.

Yet, last week's ruling from the Supreme Court indicates a possible future balancing point. In restricting the ability of lower courts to interfere in presidential proclamations, the ruling threatens to diminish the judiciary's most effective lever for holding the executive accountable. For some, this is a long overdue clarification of presidential authority. For others, this ruling represents a step in a broader trend toward concentrating power in a centralized Executive Branch - a development which could have lasting implications for American democracy.

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which focused on the narrower question of whether lower courts can scrutinise presidential decrees, has opened up a much broader inquiry into the structure of American democracy. By reducing the role of the lower courts in checking executive orders, the ruling essentially increases presidential discretion, regardless of who is in office. Although some are framing the ruling as a victory of sorts for Donald Trump in his ongoing legal struggles seeking to end birthright citizenship, it signals a broader trend toward centralisation of power in the executive branch. Critics argue that this reduces the judicial system's ability to serve as a check on the Executive at a time when many, including Democrats, accuse Trump's administration of whittling democratic protections in a way that some have described as 'dictatorial.' The timing of the court's ruling only serves to exacerbate these fears, compounded by the recent protests in Los Angeles relating to aggressive immigration enforcement by ICE and the use of the National Guard to clear protesters. In such a politically polarised environment, the notion of limiting judicial protections invites public trust challenges and alienates communities who are already at odds with federal agency policies.

Advocates claim that centralising power means critical consistency and clarity in an

increasingly divided nation. Opponents argue that diminishing checks and balances, even at the expense of efficiency, is dangerous territory. As governance and authoritarianism becomes indistinguishable the ruling compels Americans to confront a troubling question: Is centralising power in the presidency a pathway to stability in the nation, or is it another step to dismantling constitutional democracy?

Image: Flickr