[Ancapistani]

> How do you see this being resolved?

At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.

I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals.

The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.

[IAmBroom]

> At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.

The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office?

How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?

[jswelker]

I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.

[Ancapistani]

I can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.

[disgruntledphd2]

If they do the same thing to Republican presidents then I'll believe it's principled. I haven't seen much sign of that, though.

Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.