Hi John,

The courts have been busy in the second Trump administration, with many of the administration's actions being ruled illegal or unconstitutional by lower courts. What that means, of course, is that we're watching the Supreme Court closely for issues relating to the consolidation of power in the executive branch and money in politics. 

Here are 4 cases on the docket that we're watching 👀

One of the hallmarks of President Trump's economic policy is imposing tariffs on other countries. He claims emergency authority to do so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – the first time this act has been used to impose tariffs. 

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, plaintiffs argue that the IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, that the Constitution clearly lays that power in the hands of Congress. 

Oral arguments are set to begin November 5, and Trump has said he might make an appearance during the oral arguments – another first. 

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has attempted to fire members of independent federal agencies like the Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, and National Transportation Safety Board. 

Congress has long limited the ability of the executive to remove members of independent agencies before their term is up, in an effort to avoid firings for political reasons, and the Supreme Court has upheld that since 1935. 

The Supreme Court has behaved inconsistently when it comes to the current firings: they kept Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, in office while agreeing to hear oral arguments in January. However, they allowed the administration to move forward with firing Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, while also agreeing to hear arguments in that case. 

Both cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, with Trump v. Slaughter having oral arguments in December and Trump v. Cook having oral arguments in January. 

One of the few limits on campaign spending we have is now under attack before the Supreme Court: the laws that limit the amount of money political party committees can spend in coordination with a political candidate. 

Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision (FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee) denies them their First Amendment rights to free speech and want these limitations overturned…meaning parties can pour even more money into elections, making campaigns even more expensive. 

Oral arguments are set for December.

It's easy to feel like once a case has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, it's over. But that's not how it has to be. Congress still has the ability to make laws. If the Supreme Court rules that emergency powers enable the president to impose tariffs, for example, Congress could pass laws better defining emergency powers, making it harder for the president to invoke them. 

That's why we're telling Congress to stand up for their Constitutional powers and have the courage to do what our founders wanted – be a check on the executive branch.