Home Internet Trend Stories 1

The Supreme Court's Power Play: 5 Ways Greg Stohr Says SCOTUS Is Expanding Presidential Authority

• minute read
Contents
The balance of power in Washington is undergoing a radical, historic shift, and the Supreme Court is the primary architect. As of late 2024, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr has been at the forefront of analyzing how the Court's conservative supermajority is systematically expanding the scope of presidential power while simultaneously curtailing the authority of the administrative state. This deep-dive into the Court's recent docket reveals a sustained effort to reshape the constitutional landscape, granting the Executive Branch unprecedented new authority in areas ranging from criminal prosecution to regulatory policy. The core of Stohr's analysis centers on a series of landmark decisions and pending cases that, taken together, represent a massive transfer of power. This is not merely an incremental change; it is a fundamental re-imagining of the separation of powers, driven by conservative legal doctrines like the unitary executive theory and a skepticism toward the federal bureaucracy. The implications are profound, affecting everything from environmental protection to financial regulation and the very accountability of the nation's highest office.

Greg Stohr: Biography and Professional Profile

Greg Stohr is one of the most respected and authoritative voices covering the United States Supreme Court today. His career has been dedicated to translating the complex, often opaque world of high-stakes legal battles into accessible, impactful journalism.

  • Primary Role: Supreme Court Reporter for Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Law.
  • Education: Graduated from Harvard Law School (HLS), bringing a deep academic understanding to his reporting.
  • Journalistic Career: Has spent decades covering the Court, providing award-winning coverage of pivotal moments in American legal history.
  • Author: He is the author of "A Black and White Case: How Affirmative Action Survived Its Greatest Legal Challenge," a definitive work on the subject.
  • Expertise Focus: Stohr frequently appears on national news programs and podcasts to discuss major constitutional law issues, particularly those concerning the separation of powers, administrative law, and civil rights.

The Three Pillars of Expanded Executive Authority

Stohr’s reporting highlights that the Supreme Court’s expansion of presidential power is not a single-issue phenomenon. Instead, it is a multi-pronged legal strategy focusing on three distinct areas: presidential accountability (immunity), control over the administrative state (agency power), and the structural separation of powers.

1. Forging a Doctrine of Presidential Immunity

Perhaps the most immediate and politically charged area of power expansion is the doctrine of presidential immunity. This issue came to a head in the landmark case of Trump v. United States, where the Court was asked to determine the extent to which a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office.

The Ruling’s Impact: Greg Stohr reported extensively on the Court’s 6-3 ideological split, which ultimately granted the former President a degree of immunity. While the Court did not grant absolute immunity, its ruling created a new, complex framework requiring lower courts to distinguish between a President's official acts (which may be protected) and private acts (which are not).

The Stohr Analysis: Stohr pointed out that by creating this new, albeit partial, immunity standard, the Court has fundamentally altered the accountability of the highest office. The decision essentially creates a shield, requiring prosecutors to overcome a new legal hurdle. This delay and complexity, Stohr argues, strengthens the hand of any future President facing legal challenges, effectively expanding the power of the office by limiting the checks on it.

Key Entity: Trump v. United States (Presidential Immunity Case).

2. Dismantling the Administrative State to Empower the President

A less visible but arguably more consequential shift involves the Court’s sustained attack on the "administrative state"—the vast network of federal agencies like the EPA, SEC, and FDA that implement federal law. The core mechanism here is the potential overturning of the 1984 precedent Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, known as Chevron deference.

The Chevron Challenge: Chevron deference compels judges to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Stohr has reported that the Court’s conservative majority views this deference as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to unelected bureaucrats. If Chevron is overturned, as cases like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo suggest, the power vacuum will be significant.

The Power Shift: Stohr’s analysis is clear: eliminating Chevron deference does not just empower judges; it ultimately empowers the President. By stripping the agencies of their independent interpretive authority, the Court concentrates power in two places: the federal judiciary (to interpret the law) and the President (who controls the agency heads). This aligns perfectly with the Unitary Executive Theory, a conservative legal principle that asserts the President has absolute control over the entire executive branch.

Key Entities: Chevron Deference, Unitary Executive Theory, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Administrative Law.

3. The Rise of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD)

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) is another powerful tool the Court is using to curb agency power, a topic Stohr has frequently covered. The MQD holds that for issues of vast economic or political significance, a federal agency cannot act unless Congress has clearly and explicitly granted it that authority.

MQD in Action: The Court used the MQD in West Virginia v. EPA to strike down the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Stohr highlighted this as a prime example of the Court inserting itself into policy-making to limit the power of the executive branch's regulatory agencies.

The Paradoxical Expansion: While the MQD appears to limit the executive branch (by restricting agencies), Stohr argues that the practical effect is to centralize power. By making it harder for agencies to act on their own, the Court forces the President to rely more heavily on executive orders or direct, top-down control to achieve policy goals, bypassing the expert-driven regulatory process. This shift reinforces the President's role as the sole, dominant figure in the executive branch, a key component of the power expansion.

Key Entities: Major Questions Doctrine, West Virginia v. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Separation of Powers.

The Long-Term Consequences: A Systemic Rebalance

Greg Stohr’s overall assessment is that the Supreme Court is not just deciding individual cases; it is orchestrating a structural rebalance of power that will define the American presidency for decades. This judicial activism, driven by originalist and textualist interpretations of the Constitution, has significant long-term consequences.

Erosion of Checks and Balances

The combination of presidential immunity and the dismantling of the administrative state's independent power weakens traditional checks and balances. Stohr’s reporting suggests that a President armed with a degree of immunity and direct control over agencies, unconstrained by Chevron deference or the implied authority of the MQD, becomes significantly harder to challenge by both the judiciary (in terms of accountability) and the legislative branch (in terms of policy implementation).

The Weaponization of the 'Shadow Docket'

Stohr has also drawn attention to the Court's increasing use of the "shadow docket"—emergency rulings and procedural orders that are often issued without full briefing or oral argument. These decisions, often coming late at night, have been used to grant the President quick victories on issues like executive orders and immigration policy. Stohr notes that this practice allows the Court to expand executive authority quickly and with less public scrutiny, further accelerating the power shift.

Key Entities: Shadow Docket, Judicial Activism, Constitutional Law, Accountability.

In conclusion, Greg Stohr's reporting serves as a critical warning and a comprehensive guide to the current state of American governance. The Supreme Court's expansion of presidential power through doctrines like partial immunity, the Major Questions Doctrine, and the potential end of Chevron deference represents a fundamental change. The Court’s actions are centralizing authority in the Executive Branch, making the President more powerful, less accountable, and the sole driver of the administrative state’s direction.

greg stohr discusses supreme court's expansion of presidential power
greg stohr discusses supreme court's expansion of presidential power

Detail Author:

  • Name : Victor Torphy
  • Username : schoen.isaac
  • Email : hahn.cayla@hotmail.com
  • Birthdate : 1979-07-13
  • Address : 4795 Huels Flats Ritchiebury, PA 40827-7353
  • Phone : (856) 384-6617
  • Company : Treutel-Gerhold
  • Job : Nuclear Technician
  • Bio : Laborum sint eum temporibus magnam. Quaerat et magnam esse molestiae. Non fuga pariatur dolor esse.

Socials

tiktok:

  • url : https://tiktok.com/@ankunding2015
  • username : ankunding2015
  • bio : Nesciunt cupiditate vel aut. Nostrum eligendi id dolor aut odio.
  • followers : 1656
  • following : 602

instagram:

Random Posts