The issues presented in Trump v. U.S. were based on Trump’s outrageous actions in his first term. The Biden Administration was literally forced to prosecute, as there were numerous questions raised under the then-existing laws. In turn, the Supreme Court was obligated to clarify the legal standards at issue. Because the Court majority, if not all members, were true institutionalists, they turned to George Washington’s Farewell Address, among other Federalist sources. There, our first President warned of the dangers of revengeful factions and the need for properly-distributed powers. (See Federalist #10 and #51 )

It is this observer’s opinion that the Court recognized the severe factional strife caused by Trump’s obnoxious actions that it decided to clarify the rules and procedures for challenging executive authority. The Court had already firmly confirmed that it was that branch that decides what the law is. Surely, they also had in mind future issues addressing the powers of the Legislative branch. Thus, the Court found it the proper time to “lay down the law” for the Executive branch.

Before addressing this Trump v. U.S. decision further, it must be pointed out that the case was remanded to the District Court to establish a factual record in accordance with the new “official actions” criteria. Thus, a more precise picture of Executive authority has yet to be developed via further actions. Remember, if Harris had won the election, we would likely have a clearer picture of the law today. In closing, don’t get me started now on that debacle!