US Supreme Court has expanded presidential powers under Trump: How far will it go?

US Supreme Court has expanded presidential powers under Trump: How far will it go?

For nine months, a stream of emergency orders from the US Supreme Court has allowed US President Donald Trump to broaden his authority—slashing parts of the federal bureaucracy, removing leaders of nominally independent agencies and asserting powers long associated with US Congress. On Wednesday, the court hears arguments on whether most of the president’s tariffs are legal, the first in a series of tests that could cement or curb this expansion, the Washington Post reported.

What the justices will test

The tariff dispute goes to the core of Trump’s claim that he can unilaterally impose sweeping levies as part of his economic agenda. Lower courts have said the law he relied on does not grant that power. The administration warns of economic harm if the justices strike the policy. Businesses and states counter that the levies are unlawful and damaging. Decisions in this and related cases are expected by summer.

How we got here

Since January, the court has repeatedly granted the White House wins on its emergency docket, temporarily clearing the way for high-impact actions while litigation continues. Those orders have broadened Trump’s latitude across the executive branch, even as the underlying merits remain unresolved. The pattern has raised pressure on the court and heightened the stakes of the term ahead.

The Roberts court and the unitary executive

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has authored opinions emphasizing a powerful presidency, writing in 2020 that the “entire executive power belongs to the President alone” and later extending broad immunity for official acts. These rulings align with the unitary executive theory, which grants the president sweeping control over the executive branch and wide removal authority—an approach now central to Trump’s second-term agenda.

Independent agencies under strain

Through a string of interim rulings, the court has permitted Trump to remove members of bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Liberal justices, led by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, warn this trajectory undercuts the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent that insulated independent agencies from partisan control, threatening their bipartisanship and expertise.

Power over the bureaucracy and the purse

The court has also allowed dramatic downsizing moves, including a decision that enabled Trump to dismiss a large share of Education Department staff and outsource functions. Critics argue such steps let the executive nullify statutes by eliminating the personnel needed to carry them out. In parallel, the administration has unilaterally frozen or withheld significant congressionally appropriated funds, with a key ruling limiting who can challenge such freezes.

The emergency docket debate

The White House has brought far more emergency appeals than predecessors, winning the majority of them. Liberal justices say the conservative majority is making consequential choices without full briefing or argument, upending the traditional preference for preserving the status quo. Civil liberties advocates argue the court is recasting how harms are weighed, privileging the president’s desire to implement policy over immediate injuries to challengers.

Why this term matters

Taken together, this term’s cases will decide whether the court embraces Trump’s view of a presidency checked only lightly by Congress and the courts, absent war or national crisis. Beyond tariffs, upcoming arguments target long-standing protections for independent agencies and could even touch the president’s influence over the Federal Reserve. Legal scholars note that previous surges in executive power followed clear national emergencies; they see no modern analogue now.

The politics around the law

The White House frames the court’s recent decisions as corrections to rulings by “far-left liberal activist judges” and says Trump is executing the agenda voters endorsed. Critics respond that a deferential court and a compliant Congress risk shifting the constitutional balance in ways that will be difficult to reverse, consolidating policymaking in the White House through removals, spending freezes and emergency actions.

What to watch next

Wednesday’s tariff arguments will signal how the justices read the governing statute and whether they demand clear congressional authorization for such sweeping economic moves. Later cases will test the future of independent agencies and the scope of presidential control over the executive branch. The answers will determine whether the past nine months were a temporary tide or the new baseline for presidential power.