Tag Archives: Roberts Court

Part 2: Constitutional Debate Witnessed

When I wrote recently that the Roberts Court appears to be restoring the constitutional boundaries between Congress, the President, and the federal courts, I had no idea that only days later the Supreme Court would decide a case that answered a constitutional question I had personally wrestled with thirty-five years ago.

This week’s decision overruling Humphrey’s Executor is being reported as another dispute over presidential power. I see it differently. I see it as the Supreme Court finally resolving a constitutional argument that took place inside the George H. W. Bush Administration in 1991.

Continue reading

What Is the Roberts Court Really Doing?

Analysis: Something much bigger than immigration is happening at the Supreme Court, and I don’t think most Americans have noticed it yet. The Roberts Court isn’t just deciding controversial cases. It may be quietly redefining how the federal government itself is supposed to work.

Over the last week, the Supreme Court decided three important immigration cases. As usual, the news media immediately divided into two camps. One side said the Court was anti-immigrant. The other side said it was simply enforcing the law.

I think both sides are missing something much bigger.

Continue reading