It’s still early in the term, but the Supreme Court has several significant legal battles teed up for rulings that could shape President Trump’s presidency, and they could be handed down any day now.
The justices are poised to deliver a decision imminently on Mr. Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago and whether he acted within the law when he federalized the soldiers.
The court is also under pressure to decide whether to allow Texas to use its new, more Republican-friendly congressional map in elections next year.
Last week, Mr. Trump urged the Supreme Court to rule quickly on a case challenging his tariffs. The justices heard oral arguments earlier last month.
“I look so much forward to the United States Supreme Court’s decision on this urgent and time sensitive matter so that we can continue, in an uninterrupted manner to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Mr. Trump posted to social media.
Tariffs
Businesses challenged Mr. Trump’s global tariffs and his targeted tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico. They argued that the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs and Capitol Hill has not lent that authority to the president, or at least not to the extent Mr. Trump has claimed.
Mr. Trump said a 1977 law grants him emergency powers to impose tariffs. The law doesn’t specifically use that word, but Mr. Trump said it is outlined in the language regarding the regulation of importation.
The justices expressed skepticism about the president’s position when they heard arguments in the case last month. They questioned whether Congress had truly granted the executive such expansive power to impose duties on all foreign goods.
The Supreme Court could hand down a decision at any time during its term, but Mr. Trump has said that any delay could harm his negotiating position with other nations and that the upheaval would intensify over time if the justices rule against him.
National Guard
The court won’t hear oral argument, but it has completed briefing on the case challenging Mr. Trump’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard to the Chicago area.
Troops have been on hold based on a lower court ruling.
The case, like the tariffs, hinges on how Congress wrote the law, which grants the president the power to federalize and deploy National Guard troops when the “regular forces” are insufficient to carry out federal duties.
In a follow-up question, the high court asked the attorneys whether “regular forces” meant the military or something else.
Whichever way the high court rules is likely to set the standard for Mr. Trump’s troop deployments in Portland, Oregon, and the District of Columbia.
Texas map
The high court will issue a decision on whether Texas can use a new legislative map that could net Republicans as many as five more seats in the 2026 congressional elections.
The legal battle came to the high court over a contest from voting rights activists who claimed the pro-Republican map discriminated against minority voters.
Riding on the outcome of the case is the possible swing of up to five seats in Texas, currently held by Democrats. Republicans believe the seats are winnable under the lines drawn this summer.
A district court, in a 2-1 ruling, found that Texas’ new map was likely illegal and ordered the state to stick with its previous, more Democratic-friendly map. The state rushed to the Supreme Court last month seeking permission to keep the Republican-friendly map in place.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. put the lower court ruling on hold and asked for more briefs.
Now, one week after the briefing deadline has passed, Justice Alito or the full court could issue a decision on Texas’ map.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.