A Conservative Court—Not a Trump Court: The end of another high-profile term makes clear that the justices are far from letting the president do whatever he wants. (Ilya Shapiro, Jul 06 2026, City Journal)
Instead, we have a largely originalist and textualist Court—interpreting constitutional provisions according to their original public meaning, and laws according to the plain meaning of their text—with conservative sensibilities in the institutional sense. That means that it’s trying to rebalance the separation of powers and enforce federalism. It can look like it’s favoring President Trump because a majority believe that the Constitution gives the president control of the executive branch—what’s sometimes called “unitary executive theory”—but that doesn’t mean that it’ll let him do anything he wants. The president remains constrained by statutes, courts, Congress, and the Constitution. That means that the justices won’t let Trump rewrite laws by himself—and his legal positions have run into trouble when they push that envelope. […]
Two weeks ago, seven of nine decisions split 6–3 along ideological lines. But in the seemingly more controversial denouement, only four of seven did. Perhaps more interestingly, in the three final-week decisions that didn’t follow the ideological 6–3 pattern, all three liberal justices were in the majority.
Moreover, of the Court’s 56 signed opinions in argued cases—not including the emergency applications for stay that were decided on the papers—25 were unanimous (44.6 percent) and another six were 8–1 (10.7 percent). That’s over 50 percent and higher than last year. And in another 11 cases, three or four Republican appointees dissented, revealing doctrinal discord among conservatives, not partisan splits.
Fortunately, Mitch and the Federalist Society chose the Justices, not Donald.