Washington-if well, the aggressive use of the Executive Power of President Donald Trump has resulted in a large number of demands, administration officials have won a series of high profile victories in the Supreme Court in part due to the careful selection of cases aimed at obtaining the support of the conservative majority.
The White House has won 18 times in the Supreme Court since Trump assumed the position and is in a winning race of 15 cases. The last loss was in May.
“They are ecstatic,” said a person close to the White House about the series of recent legal victories, adding that officials do not want to exaggerate their hand in court.
But only a small number of more than 300 active lawsuits filed against the Trump administration has reached the Supreme Court.
Until now, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to evaluate on an emergency base 28 times, according to a NBC news count. He has lost only two. Five cases are pending, although the court issued temporary victories to the government in two of them, while deciding what next steps take. Three others did not result in any decision.
The limited number of emergency applications compared to the total number of cases indicates that the administration distrusts the judges on issues on which even a conservative majority receptive to some of their aggressive statements of executive power can go back.
“We are being very careful,” said a White House official. “We are splashing ours, crossing our T. but we prepare for loss, of course. We never assume.”
He pressed if there was a sense of surprise within the White House in the success of the Administration in the Supreme Court, the official said that the lawyer’s team, which includes litigants and former employees of the Law of the Supreme Court and is led by David Warrington, has been very involved in the front of the policy process to prepare orders that can be legally defended.
The administration expects to be sued for everything, but the biggest surprise was the frequency with which the judges of the lower court had blocked the executive actions, said that official.
“We take into account the fact that some things are more priority to others, and the majority of what we are appealing is a priority,” said the official.
“The Trump administration policies have been constantly confirmed by the Supreme Court as legal despite an unprecedented amount of legal challenges and illegal decisions of the lower court,” said White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, in a statement. “The president will continue to implement the policy agenda that the American people legally voted in November, and the profit will continue!”
The Department of Justice, which litigates cases in the Court, did not respond to requests that seek comments.
The main lawyer of the Department’s Supreme Court is the Attorney General D. John Sauer, who served as legal secretary under the late conservative judge Antonin Scalia. Sauer, who was one of Trump’s personal lawyers before assuming the position, successfully argued last year in the Supreme Court that the former president had a wide immunity regarding his role in trying to challenge the electoral results of 2020.
Sauer has successfully asked the Supreme Court that allows him to carry out some of his highest political priorities, including the reduction of federal agencies, eliminating protections for thousands of immigrants living in the United States and excepting the transgender people of the military.
The two losses were in cases of high profile immigration. In one, the court suspended the plans to immediately deport immigrants using a war law called Alien Enemies Law. In the other, the Court ruled that the court should seek return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego García, who was erroneously deported to El Salvador.
But the Department of Justice has not resorted to the Supreme Court in some of its most controversial movements that were blocked by federal judges, including the executive orders that were addressed to certain law firms and the government the arrest of foreign students who protested against Israel for their military intervention in Gaza.
“There are some cases that are very likely to be losers who have not brought,” said Jonathan Adler, professor at William & Mary Law Faculty. “That suggests that it has been very strategic.”
Other major cases are on the horizon, including a consequent confrontation about Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs on imported goods.
“They have had a few very good months. But the real ball game is still ahead,” said Michael Toner, litigant and former president of the Federal Electoral Commission, referring to the case of rates and another confrontation about Trump’s attempt to shoot without causing a democratic member of the Federal Commerce Commission.
Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Responsibility Center on the left, said that part of the success of the administration has so far been the rate at which she has brought problems to the Court that reflect the arguments that have been favored by the conservative legal movement. That includes empowering the presidency and weakening the power of independent federal agencies.
“His winning streak shows that the Court is not particularly interested at this time in acting as a constitutional control of the Executive [branch]. We have seen the lower courts enter that role, ”he added.
The most respectful tone of the Administration towards the Supreme Court is disagreeing with the frantic relationship that officials have had with the judges of the low court that have frequently governed against several White House policies.
Some judges previously told NBC News that the decisions of the Supreme Court in favor of the Administration have served at least to make the appearance of validating the harsh criticism of the Judiciary taken by Trump and its allies. The judges have also accused the administration of judicial orders of challenge.
The different and more conciliatory tone, the administration had adopted before the Supreme Court was exhibited in May when the judges heard oral arguments about whether to stop the decisions of the lower court that blocked Trump’s plan to end citizens by birth right.
Sauer, pressed if the administration could challenge certain decisions of the Court, said he was not always obliged to remain precedents of the lower court, but would always follow what the Supreme Court says.
“So you are not covering at all with respect to the precedent of this court?” Judge Amy Coney Barrett asked, who finally wrote the court ruling in favor of the administration.
“That’s right,” Sauer said.
