New Supreme Court term will reshape Trump’s powers

The US Supreme Court begins on Monday with a potentially important document that can define the scope of Donald Trump’s presidential authority and the possibility of future.

In eight months when Trump returned to the White House, he tested the limits of the executive power, implemented new policies unilaterally, reduced federal budgets and labor force, and previously controlled independent agencies and institutions.

The latest brewing legal war comes from the attempts of the President to seize the control of the state national guard units and to place them in cities where he claims to be public unrest and widespread crime upon the objection of local and state officials.

In Oregon, a Federal judge gave orders Trump from placing troops in Portland. A Court of Appeal is preparing to review the movement in the coming days.

“This is not martial law, not martial law,” he wrote in the first period of Trump.

“The defendants, if accepted, the line between the civil and military federal power to the harm of this nation that blurred a series of arguments.”

After the Court of Appeal has a say, the Supreme Court may engage through the so -called “shadow document” and make Trump’s ability to use the army in the US territory or at least a temporary free hand.

Such investigations have recently become a more routine event, because the majority of Supreme Justice, in response to emergency petitions from the Trump administration, has greatly permitted the progress of the President’s actions as legal difficulties emerged.

“A war between the Supreme Court and the Lower Federal Courts will be a repulsive force in the coming period,” Samuel Bray, a professor at the University of Chicago at the University of Chicago, said in a briefing last month. He said.

The confidence of the court in this Shadow Document has been criticized by left -handed legal academics and politicians as inappropriate use of the court’s authority. His orders were typically short, offering limited legal reasoning and leaving lower -level judges with minimum guidance.

“All Americans should be worried about the increasing confidence in the shadow certificate of the Supreme Court to solve the controversial and high -profile cases without any transparency,” New Jersey said in a statement earlier this year. He said.

“This also takes the court’s negotiations and decisions away from the public examination and protects it from accountability.”

However, in the coming months, the court cope with questions about the presidential power and other high -profile discussions, and full decisions were made about the hearing and principles of verbal arguments.

Maya Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena Sena. “” If they will give the manager more power, he will have to explain why. “

The court is planned to think that the federal laws, which prohibit the abolition of the agency members designed by the Congress, violate the executive authority independent of the Presidential influence.

Justice is also a lawsuit that can significantly increase the president’s power on the American economic policy in an accelerated examination of Trump’s attempt to expel the Lisa Cook from his position as the governor of the effective Federal Reserve Board.

The US and the global economy are the front and center, as the Supreme Court justice will decide whether most of the tariffs given to Trump’s unilateral foreign imports have sufficient legal authority or invalid.

Justice can also review Trump’s attempts to ignite the policies of unilaterally cutting federal expenditures and lower -level government employees, as well as aggressive migration and deportation policies.

Although the court has not yet agreed to take into account the attempt to terminate automatic citizenship for those born in the US territory, it can do so in the coming months.

Professor Jennifer Nou from the University of Chicago Law at the University of Chicago said to the BBC with an E -Posta, “The scope of the administrator power will be in front of this period and the middle.”

“The cases before the court will test the highest political and economic priorities of the Trump administration, whether the right to birth or the right to birth.

“A question will be whether the justice used the principles (eg the main questions doctrine) used to hit the signature of the signature of the signature politically.”

The court used the new fashion “Doctrine of important questions” for Stymie, claiming that the Congress did not allow a clear permission to do so.

The presidential power is the central focus of this year’s Supreme Court, but in the coming months, several hot buttons are planned for political and cultural discussion.

The Court will review the leaning of Colorado on the transformation therapy – whether there is a controversial practice that tries to use a consultancy to change the sexual orientation of a person or the gender identity – violating constitutional free speech protections.

In addition, there are two cases in the interscholastic sports competition that includes state bans to transsexual athletes.

A Republican Congress member in Illinois is challenging a state law that allows the votes to be counted for two weeks from the election day.

A group of Louisiana Conservative asked the court to submit a law of voting rights that require states to withdraw the representation of black voters equal to population levels.

And the Republican Party aims to have a decimal law that prevents political candidates and parties from coordinating campaign expenditures.

For the last few years, this Conservative Sovereign Supreme Court has shown that the turning point that significantly changed the legal view of America has been willing to make new decisions.

Abortion rights, federal regulatory authority and considering the race in college assumptions, such as the Court has reversed the current peers for decades.

These decisions contributed to the public of the highly polarized Supreme Court along the Partisan lines.

In a recent Pew Foundation survey, the views of the country’s highest legal organ were almost equally divided, Republicans supportive and democrats were extremely critical.

When the court made its final decisions in this period, which was expected until the end of June, the 6-3 conservative majority in the court may have broken a new ground and once again reshaped the American law.

With Kayla Epstein’s additional reports.