Trump v. CASA Inc. reflects John Roberts' ongoing effort to shift power to the executive branch. This case mirrors the precedent set in Trump v. United States, reinforcing executive authority at the expense of legislative and judicial checks. Such actions challenge democratic integrity by promoting a strong executive not constrained by laws or judicial decisions. A critical dissent by Ketanji Brown Jackson highlights the ramifications of permitting the executive to circumvent checks through requests to dissolve universal injunctions, raising concerns about constitutional violations and liberties.
The Executive's bid to vanquish so-called "universal injunctions" is, at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says "do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct," what it is truly seeking is an unfettered ability to act without judicial restraint.
Roberts continues strengthening presidential power while undermining the legislature and judiciary, creating a concerning trajectory for democratic governance and rule of law.
Collection
[
|
...
]