Sink or sail with Potus and Scotus
Donald Trump can be labeled as the “best-suited” President of the United States (Potus) with more than 700 lawsuits filed against him and/or his actions in various US courts since he assumed office on Jan. 20, 2025. About 30 of these, per the New York Times, have been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (Scotus). Parenthetically, the Scotus normally adheres to the hierarchy of courts and handles only cases appealed from the lower courts. Very rarely does it accept original cases.
THE MOST CRUCIAL SUITS center on his massive crackdown against alleged undocumented or overstaying migrants, his tariff impositions, his cancellation of federal aid to education, and the consequences of the US war with Iran.
Despite widespread criticisms, Trump expressed confidence in winning in the Scotus, banking on the supermajority of six conservative justices named by Republican presidents, three of them by him during his first term in 2017-2021.
He was upset when the Scotus, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Feb. 20, 2026), struck down his tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by two fellow conservatives, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, plus the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In debunking Trump, CJ Roberts clarified that while “the President asserts extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs … he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
STUNG BY HIS DEFEAT, Trump vented his ire on his two appointees, Gorsuch and Barrett, by lamenting that “they sicken me because they’re bad for our country.” Apparently, Trump conveniently forgot that the Scotus’ conservative super majority had almost always voted unanimously in his favor. Let me cite two cases:
First, in Department of Homeland Security v. DVD (June 23, 2025), the Scotus reversed a Massachusetts district court that required the government to provide a “meaningful opportunity” for noncitizens to contest their removal, and lifted restrictions on deportations of undesirable aliens not only to their homeland but also to third countries “that would accept them.” The three dissenting liberal justices criticized the ruling of the six conservative majority as a “gross abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”
Second, just days later, in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025), the Scotus again voted 6-3 to reject “universal injunctions” issued by the lower courts prohibiting Trump from ending birthright citizenship for children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized the lack of historical precedent for such injunctions. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor called the majority’s decision “patently unconstitutional” that cuts into the heart of the US Constitution’s guarantee that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
With its recent decisions, the Scotus appeared to be supportive of Trump’s questionable ways, never mind that the Potus is increasingly losing in public opinion polls. A 2026 survey by Reuters showed that 64 percent of Americans opposed his elimination of birthright citizenship (32 percent agreed, four percent abstained), while a Pew Research survey found that 60 percent disapproved his tariff expansions.
More telling, however, is the declining confidence in the Scotus. A 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of Americans do not view the Scotus to be politically neutral, with only 20 percent expressing confidence in its impartiality.
HAVING SERVED THE BAR AND THE BENCH FOR ALMOST SEVEN DECADES, I have tried to emulate the Scotus of old when it was a bastion of liberty, prosperity, and the rule of law. I am totally disjointed when I hear how the present Scotus appears to be losing long-term public trust to “let justice be done though the heavens may fall.”
Yet, I still hope against hope that the Scotus would one day catch up with the sparkle of Chief Justice John Marshall, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Joseph Story, Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, and others. I may not agree with everything they have written, but I will always cherish the passion, scholarship, and independence with which they expressed themselves, whether for the majority or for the minority.
Yes, I still look forward to the day when the Scotus would rebound to its old glory, for what happens in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” reverberates around the world. When both its elected leader and its highest tribunal are perceived to be less than fair and trustworthy, the consequences ripple far beyond its borders. Governments recalibrate, investors reassess, and jurists look elsewhere for models.
The Scotus is expected to rule on more cases involving immigrants and birthright citizenship by the end of June. One question remains: Will the Scotus sail fairly and independently, or will it sink in the whirlpool of history along with the Potus?
—————
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
