The Supreme Court appears poised to expand presidential authority through several key cases this term. Legal experts warn these decisions could fundamentally alter the balance of power in Washington if former President Trump returns to office.
Last week’s oral arguments in the presidential immunity case revealed a Court seemingly sympathetic to Trump’s claims that presidents need substantial protection from prosecution. Justice Kavanaugh suggested that presidents require “breathing space” to make difficult decisions without fear of legal repercussions.
“What we’re witnessing is potentially the most significant shift in executive power doctrine since Watergate,” says Daniel Hemel, constitutional law professor at NYU. “The Court’s conservative majority appears ready to grant presidents unprecedented immunity from criminal liability.”
The immunity case isn’t happening in isolation. The Court has already limited the ability of federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes in West Virginia v. EPA and signaled openness to dismantling aspects of the administrative state in other cases.
According to White House records, Trump publicly expressed frustration with constraints on presidential power at least 47 times during his first term. A former senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me, “He genuinely believed Article II gave him authority to do almost anything. He’d be even more aggressive with these new Court precedents.”
The implications extend beyond criminal immunity. The Court’s willingness to entertain expansive executive authority theories could embolden future administrations to test other constitutional boundaries, particularly around national security and emergency powers.
Law professor Kate Shaw from Cardozo Law School points to another troubling trend. “The Court increasingly relies on its shadow docket to make consequential decisions without full briefing or public scrutiny,” she explains. “This lack of transparency benefits the executive branch, which can implement policies before legal challenges fully develop.”
The Court’s rightward shift stems partly from Trump’s three appointments during his presidency. Justice Barrett’s confirmation just days before the 2020 election solidified a 6-3 conservative majority that has proven willing to reconsider longstanding precedents.
Congressional Democrats have expressed alarm about these developments. Representative Adam Schiff of California stated, “We’re watching the Court potentially hand a blueprint for authoritarianism to someone who’s already attempted to overturn an election.”
Public opinion reflects this concern. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 68% of Americans worry about excessive presidential power, though views split sharply along partisan lines. Republican voters generally support stronger executive authority when their party holds the White House.
Some legal scholars offer a more measured assessment. “The Court isn’t creating imperial presidency overnight,” says Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University. “They’re recalibrating institutional relationships that had tilted toward Congress and agencies in recent decades.”
Historical context matters here. Presidents from both parties have expanded executive power incrementally over generations. From Lincoln’s Civil War emergency measures to Roosevelt’s New Deal to Bush’s war on terror, presidents typically acquire powers that successors rarely relinquish.
What makes the current moment unique is the convergence of an assertive Court with political polarization and the distinct possibility that Trump—who pushed constitutional boundaries during his first term—could return to office with newly established legal protections.
The Court’s decisions expected this June will shape presidential power for generations. Whether they represent prudent constitutional correction or dangerous democratic erosion remains fiercely debated.
“The Founders created checks and balances specifically because they feared concentrated power,” notes Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. “These rulings risk upsetting that careful equilibrium at a precarious moment for American democracy.”
Whatever the Court decides, one thing remains clear: the relationship between our three branches of government is undergoing profound transformation, with implications that will outlast any single presidency or election cycle.
I’ve covered Washington for nearly two decades, and I’ve rarely seen institutional dynamics shift so dramatically with so little public attention. The technical legal questions in these cases may seem arcane, but their real-world consequences could reshape American governance for decades to come.
