_svg.png){kind=small}
U.S. Supreme Court Cases Testing Executive Power in a Second Trump Term
- corey7565
- 12 hours ago
- 5 min read
01/11/26
Nearly a year after President Trump began his second term as President, a series of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court raise a familiar constitutional question: how far executive authority can extend before it collides with the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.
American constitutional design assumes something modern politics often resists: that power will change hands—and sometimes return—under conditions of deep political division. The Constitution does not promise ease or consensus. It promises structure.
A second Trump administration has brought that structure into sharp relief. Several high-profile cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court—often referred to in national coverage as the Trump tariffs cases, the National Guard federalization case, the birthright citizenship cases, and the Election Day ballot case—do not ultimately turn on ideology. They turn on institutional boundaries: separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law.
Taken together, these disputes offer a rare, comprehensive test of whether constitutional limits remain durable when executive authority is asserted most aggressively.
The Trump Tariffs Cases and the Limits of Emergency Power
In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. (No. 25-250) and Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. (No. 24-1287)—widely described as the Trump tariff authority cases—the Court is asked whether a President may impose sweeping tariffs through emergency statutes absent clear congressional authorization.
At issue is not trade policy, but constitutional allocation of power. Article I vests the authority to impose taxes and duties in Congress. While Congress may delegate limited discretion, it must do so clearly and with intelligible limits.
These cases test whether emergency statutes can be used as substitutes for legislation. If statutory silence is treated as permission, the balance between Congress and the Executive shifts in ways the Framers explicitly sought to prevent. The Court’s ruling will shape not only tariff policy, but the future use of emergency powers by presidents of any party.
The National Guard Federalization Case
In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. State of Illinois and the City of Chicago (No. 25A443)—often called the National Guard federalization case—the Court confronts the domestic use of military force and the statutory limits on presidential authority.
Federal law permits the President to federalize state National Guard units only under narrow conditions, such as invasion or rebellion. The case asks whether those limits remain binding when political pressure intensifies.
The Constitution’s caution toward domestic military deployment is not accidental. The Framers divided control of the militia precisely to prevent federal coercion of the States and to avoid standing armies policing civilian life. This case will clarify whether those safeguards remain operative in modern governance.
The Birthright Citizenship Cases
In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. State of Washington and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al. (Nos. 25-364 and 25-365)—frequently grouped in the press as the birthright citizenship cases—the Court is asked to revisit the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
For more than a century, Supreme Court precedent has held that birth within the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, confers citizenship, subject only to narrow historical exceptions. These cases raise a fundamental separation-of-powers question: whether constitutional meaning may be altered by executive directive, or only through judicial interpretation and formal amendment under Article V.
Stability in citizenship law is not merely a policy preference. It is a constitutional necessity.
The Election Day Ballot Case
In Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee, et al. (No. 24-1260), often described as the Election Day absentee ballot case, the Court considers whether federal Election Day statutes preempt state laws that count ballots cast by Election Day but received afterward.
The distinction is a longstanding one: voting is an act performed by the citizen; counting is an administrative function performed later. Federal law establishes a uniform day for voting, not a national deadline for ballot receipt. The case tests whether courts may nationalize election administration absent unmistakable congressional direction.
The outcome will affect election administration nationwide and clarify the Constitution’s presumption of state authority over election mechanics.
A Second Term and Constitutional Restraint
Second presidential terms have historically tested institutional boundaries. Freed from electoral accountability, executives often press more assertively against constitutional limits. The Framers anticipated this dynamic and responded with structure—not trust.
Across these Supreme Court cases, the recurring question is not personality or politics. It is whether constitutional limits remain binding when power is exercised most forcefully.
Attorneys, judges, and members of the armed forces swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an administration. That oath presumes fidelity to lawful process even when restraint is inconvenient.
The Constitution does not promise efficiency. It promises balance. Whether that balance endures through a second presidential act is now, once again, before the Supreme Court.
About the Author
Corey Biazzo is a civil trial and appellate lawyer whose practice focuses on complex litigation, high-stakes legal disputes, and appellate advocacy, including matters reaching the United States Supreme Court. He represents individuals and businesses in serious civil litigation throughout Florida—particularly in Broward County, Miami-Dade County, and Palm Beach County—and throughout North Carolina, including Mecklenburg County, Union County, and Cabarrus County.
As a U.S. Supreme Court appellate lawyer, Mr. Biazzo represents clients nationwide. A defining aspect of his work is involvement in matters of national legal importance, including cases addressing constitutional structure, federal statutory interpretation, and separation-of-powers issues before the U.S. Supreme Court. This experience shapes every case he handles, even when litigation remains in trial court.
Before practicing law, Mr. Biazzo served in the United States Navy, an experience that continues to inform his professional discipline, judgment, and approach to high-pressure decision-making. Corey Biazzo got involved in the cases discussed herein and others as a pro bono public service out of his loyalty to his oath as an officer of the court to support the U.S. Constitution and loyalty to the oath of enlistment in the U.S. Navy that he took to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
Filed U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Briefs in These Cases
Tariffs Case
· Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., No. 25-250
· Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., No. 24-1287
Domestic Military Deployments Case
· Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, No. 25A443
Birthright Citizenship Case
· Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. State of Washington; Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al., Nos. 25-364 & 25-365
Mail In Ballots Case
· Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee, et al., No. 24-1260
Comments