This post was originally published on this site.
AI-generated with Grok
The Supreme Court just wrapped up its 2025 term, issuing sixty-seven opinions on cases spanning immigration, elections, gun rights, free speech, and the administrative state. An honest assessment of the court judgements reveals a mixed bag — one that should concern every American who cares about constitutional government.
Let’s start with the wins. The Court struck down a Hawaii gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment. It ruled in favor of a Colorado therapist who challenged her state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy, affirming her First Amendment right to speak freely with her clients. And critically, it ruled (multiple times) that the president does, in fact, have authority over the executive branch. Specifically, it took a stab at the so-called “independent agencies,” delivering a big win over the long-standing and bad 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor. On immigration, the Court allowed the president’s revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants to stand. All of these are big victories, and they matter.
But here is where the picture gets complicated. In multiple other cases, the Court reached what many call the right outcome while deliberately refusing to challenge the bigger issue underneath it of unconstitutional federal power. It struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but then defended Congress’s decades-long delegation of power to the executive. It struck down racial gerrymandering but left the Voting Rights Act intact.
And some things, the Supreme Court got flatly wrong. A slim majority ruled in favor of birthright citizenship — a decision that contradicts the clear original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It carved out an exception that shields the Federal Reserve from presidential oversight, entrenching an unconstitutional institution that the separation of powers should not protect.
Justice Clarence Thomas, as he has done throughout his career, repeatedly wrote separately to identify the unconstitutional federal power hiding underneath the majority’s reasoning. He was often alone in doing so, though Justice Samuel Alito was not far behind him in writing several excellent opinions. A Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court is not the same thing as a constitutionalist majority.
If you want in-depth assessment of these consequential Supreme Court rulings, plus what we do about it now – join us at Eagle Council 55 next month in Dallas! Visit EagleCouncil.com to find out more about the program and register today. That’s EagleCouncil.com. Join us next time for the Phyllis Schlafly Report.
