The Supreme Court's conservative majority blocked lower court rulings that prevented President Trump from shutting down the Department of Education without offering any explanation. Critics argue this undermines the rule of law as it leaves citizens unable to understand judicial reasoning. The dissenting opinions provided rigorous argumentation against the shutdown, illustrating that judicial reasoning is essential in a system reliant on precedent. Nearly half of the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket decisions favored the Trump administration without clear explanations, raising concerns about the Court's legitimacy and adherence to legal principles.
Judicial decision-making without reasons fundamentally undermines the rule of law. A Supreme Court that issues consequential rulings without giving reasons is on the dangerous path of appearing to act arbitrarily.
In a precedent-based legal system like the one we have in the U.S., you can't know what the law is if you don't have judicial opinions explaining why the courts have reached their conclusions.
The Department of Education ruling provides a good example of the problem. The federal district court and the federal court of appeals that blocked Trump's plans gave lengthy explanations of their reasoning.
The Supreme Court has gone worryingly far down this path. In the 15 decisions in the emergency docket decided in favor of the Trump administration, seven, nearly half, came without any explanation.
#supreme-court #trump-administration #department-of-education #judicial-decision-making #rule-of-law
Collection
[
|
...
]