Democrats Challenge Supreme Court Rulings

Democrats in Congress are intensifying their efforts to counteract recent Supreme Court rulings that have significantly altered the landscape of federal agency operations and the legal standing of former President Donald Trump. These legislative initiatives include both proposed bills and a constitutional amendment aimed at reversing decisions made by the court’s conservative majority. Despite their ambitious nature, the chances of these measures passing through the current political environment remain exceedingly slim.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill on Tuesday that reaffirms the authority of federal agencies to interpret broad congressional statutes. This legislative move, reported first by NBC News, seeks to reinstate the regulatory powers that were granted to agencies by the landmark 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This precedent was recently overturned by the court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ruled that courts are not obligated to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of statutes. Warren’s bill aims to restore the status quo, allowing agencies to create regulations and policies based on congressional legislation, even if that legislation is vague or broadly worded.

In parallel, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) has already introduced a similar measure in the House of Representatives. These legislative efforts underscore a broader strategy by Democrats to reclaim regulatory authority for federal agencies, ensuring they can operate effectively and interpret congressional mandates without judicial overreach. The Senate and House bills both aim to counteract what many Democrats see as a judicial encroachment on executive functions.

Democrats are also proposing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. This controversial ruling granted former President Trump, along with other ex-presidents, immunity from criminal charges for any “official acts” performed while in office. This decision has disrupted several ongoing criminal cases against Trump. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) released a draft of the amendment, which asserts that federal officials, including the president and vice president, are accountable for their actions and can be prosecuted for both official and unofficial acts, even after leaving office.

Following this, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) expressed his support for additional legislation that would classify Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election as “unofficial acts.” This classification would render these actions prosecutable despite the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, thereby allowing the continuation of criminal proceedings against Trump.

Despite these legislative initiatives, the probability of these measures passing in the current political climate is exceedingly low. Warren’s bill, as well as any other related legislation, would need to secure a majority in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate. Given the current GOP-controlled House and the divided Senate, these requirements present a formidable challenge. Even in a scenario where Democrats regain control of Congress, garnering enough bipartisan support to pass these initiatives remains highly unlikely.

A constitutional amendment faces even greater obstacles. It would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from 75% of the states. This high threshold is improbable given the significant number of states under Republican control, making the passage of such an amendment highly unlikely.

President Joe Biden is reportedly considering broader structural reforms for the Supreme Court, including proposals for term limits for justices and the implementation of a binding code of ethics. Biden may also support a constitutional amendment to counter the immunity ruling. However, like the specific legislative measures aimed at individual Supreme Court decisions, these broader reforms face long odds of passing through the legislative process.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Trump’s various criminal cases are still uncertain. Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan will need to determine which of Trump’s actions can be considered outside the scope of his official duties and thus prosecutable. This legal determination could delay the trial further. Trump has also attempted to use the immunity ruling to challenge other charges, such as those related to hush money payments and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that certain evidence should be excluded.

Democratic opposition to the Supreme Court has grown significantly in recent months, fueled by a series of controversial rulings and ethical scandals involving the justices. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have faced criticism for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy friends and alleged bias in cases related to the January 6th insurrection. These controversies have prompted Democrats to push for ethics reforms that would hold justices to a binding code of ethics similar to that followed by lower federal judges. Despite these efforts, Republican resistance has prevented any significant progress on these reforms.

Overall, while Congressional Democrats are making concerted efforts to counter recent Supreme Court decisions and hold former President Trump accountable, the political and procedural hurdles they face are substantial. The outcome of these initiatives remains highly uncertain amid significant opposition and the complex dynamics of the current legislative landscape.