As Americans prepared to celebrate their independence, the Supreme Court, influenced by its MAGA majority, delivered a series of rulings that have sparked widespread concern. These decisions not only reshaped legal precedents but also favored corporate interests and undermined regulatory authorities, posing significant risks to public health and democratic governance.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In a stunning reversal of the Chevron deference, the Court decided that federal courts no longer need to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. This 40-year precedent had ensured that subject matter experts, rather than judges without specialized knowledge, guided regulatory decisions. This shift hands significant power to the judiciary and corporate interests, potentially affecting regulations on abortion pills, medications, food safety, firearms, environmental protection, and more.

BONUS: Project 2025

If Donald Trump is re-elected and enacts Project 2025, his Executive Order 1395724 (Schedule F) will be reinstated. This plan would expand presidential powers while weakening the executive branch by allowing the reclassification of thousands of federal jobs. These positions would become at-will roles, open to political appointees rather than career professionals, undermining the merit-based civil service system that supports democratic governance.

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Court further eroded regulatory authority by restricting the EPA's ability to control air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and greenhouse gases. Justice Gorsuch's confusion between nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxide highlights the dangers of untrained judges making critical regulatory decisions. The ruling against limiting smog-forming pollutants jeopardizes the health of downwind state residents, particularly children and the elderly.

Trump v. United States

The Court's ruling granted former President Donald Trump "absolute" immunity for official acts, leaving lower courts to decide on unofficial acts. This decision, which affects Trump's four felony counts related to the 2020 election, elevates presidential powers to unprecedented levels. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that this could enable future presidents to engage in corrupt behavior without fear of prosecution. Legal experts have criticized this decision as creating a "king-like" presidency.

Fischer v. United States

The Court ruled that January 6 insurrectionists could seek dismissal of their charges based on a narrow interpretation of obstruction statutes. This decision potentially allows those involved in the Capitol riots to evade accountability, further undermining the rule of law and public trust in the judicial system.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

In a decision impacting unhoused Americans, the Court ruled that local governments could penalize individuals for sleeping outside, rescinding Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling disproportionately affects those living paycheck to paycheck and exacerbates the dangers faced by the homeless population.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's recent decisions mark a dramatic shift towards corporate power and executive authority, reversing decades of legal precedent. These rulings pose significant threats to environmental protection, public health, and democratic governance. It is crucial for the public to remain vigilant and advocate for the preservation of regulatory authority and judicial accountability.