It is hardly arguable that President Donald Trump is very willing to test legal boundaries. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems to be giving him ample leeway.
But rather than the legal fights, Trump’s focus is on politics and how far he can stretch both the legal and political boundaries.
The real test on both is yet to come.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s start with a history lesson.
If you examine several major rulings handed down by the six-member conservative majority of the Supreme Court, it would seem there is little willingness to mitigate Trump’s power.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave Trump a partial victory on one of his most far-reaching executive orders, ending birthright citizenship. The court’s opinion limits nationwide injunctions imposed by federal courts.
It’s interesting to note, the Constitution outlines the powers of Congress and the president in Articles 1 and 2. It formally gives Congress the power of the purse and requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Statutes dictate how agencies operate, how appointments are made and how funds must be spent. Courts interpret and enforce these rules.
The founding fathers of this country had concerns with unchecked executive powers. That’s why the legal constraints were placed.
And look to the Declaration of Independence, which was a direct rebuke of royal overreach.
But history proves legal constraints and the law alone have never been enough to prevent presidents from abusing their power. The law’s force depends on political will. Presidents often follow the law not simply because they must, but to avoid backlash from Congress, the media, or the public.
Let’s talk more about the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that district courts don’t have the power to issue nationwide injunctions, including ones to stop Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship.
It was explained by Justice Amy Coney Barrett this way: “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies.”
That historic opinion allowed Mr. Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century.
The interesting thing about that ruling, however, is that it did not end birthright citizenship or close the door on it. The court’s decision focused on limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, specifically in the context of Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship.
The ruling did not address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, which is still protected by the 14th Amendment.
In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request on 12 occasions, at least partially.
The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration’s mass layoffs of federal workers. The impact of this may be far-reaching and transform the federal government.
Some Democratic members of Congress and advocacy groups argue that the administration is acting without proper congressional approval and that these actions will harm vital government services and have a negative impact.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, emphasized that large-scale reorganizations require partnership with Congress and should not be undertaken without regard for congressional mandates.
The court allowed deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process. This is a contentious issue with legal challenges ongoing. The main question here is: Are due process rights fundamental, even for non-citizens?
And what about the legality of Trump deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles? While an appeals court initially allowed Trump to maintain control of the troops, the case is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
The core issue revolves around whether the president has the authority to federalize the National Guard without the governor’s consent and whether the circumstances in Los Angeles met the legal requirements for such federalization.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the deployment, arguing it was illegal and violated the state’s authority. Again, this case has Supreme Court potential.
Then there’s DOGE. In an unsigned order, the court, acting at the request of the Trump administration, temporarily overturned actions by two lower courts that had limited the DOGE team’s access to sensitive private information at the Social Security Administration. The vote was 6 to 3, with the conservative super majority ruling in favor of the DOGE team.
There is little doubt the Supreme Court’s view is giving Trump significant leeway with potentially more to come.
Chief Justice John Roberts answers the critics this way: “The idea that we’re responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn’t make any sense, and it’s very dangerous.” A judge’s role, he said, is to “interpret the law to the best of our ability, not to write the laws.”
Liberal members of the Supreme Court are incensed.
So who can right the wrongs of giving the executive branch too much power? George Conway III, a prominent conservative attorney, has some thoughts on that.
“We can’t expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right... They can’t save us,“ Conway said. ”The people have to save themselves here.”
Just look at how the president operates. Legal analysts say the legal boundaries are treated as obstacles, rather than with deference by the Trump administration.
Compliance is another issue because the political culture, according to those same analysts, seems to be weakening when it comes to the courts’ rulings.
Is what we are witnessing in 2025 just a president testing the system? Or is it a transformation of the presidency into a fully political institution?
Will this president act until political resistance becomes strong enough to stop him? And what is that level of resistance? The answer, according to political scientists, is political pressure.
Has there been a real test? Probably not. No judge has held the president in contempt. Trump accused the Supreme Court of “not allowing me to do what I was elected to do” after it temporarily blocked his administration’s effort to deport migrants with alleged ties to Venezuelan gangs.
Treating the judiciary as just another adversary and ignoring its rulings risks an even deeper constitutional crisis.
Again, the legal fights unfolding are serious, but Trump is not focused on those. His focus is on politics. His focus is on how far he can go. His focus is whether anyone can stop him.
The bottom line is that we haven’t gotten to the real test yet!
Political analyst and head of the Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute Rick Mullaney and JU law professor Nathan Richardson join me for this week’s episode of Politics & Power. Watch at 7 p.m. or 9 p.m. Tuesday on News4JAX+ or catch it anytime on demand on News4JAX+, News4JAX.com or our YouTube channel.