National & Minnesota

As the United States Supreme Court begins its new session, it does so under the long shadow of Trump v. United States, decided July 1, 2024. That landmark ruling, which expanded presidential immunity, has dangerously shifted the balance of power within our federal government. We, as guardians of the democratic order, recognize that the Court, having already emboldened the executive branch, must now reckon with the consequences—and course correct before constitutional order gives way to chaos.

At the center of this crisis stands Donald J Trump (R), who has repeatedly asserted unilateral federal authority—from deploying National Guard troops in defiance of local leaders to issuing executive orders that bypass governors and mayors alike. These actions represent more than just political theater—they challenge the very structure of American federalism. They flout the US Constitution, which likely Trump has never even read.

A Threat to Federalism: What’s at Stake?

Our Constitution was designed to divide power not only between the three branches of government but also between the federal government and the states. This structure, known as federalism, ensures that no single authority may dominate the entire system. The concept of “dual federalism”—in which federal and state governments operate independently within their respective spheres—has been a foundational pillar of conservative legal thought for decades.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan (R), considered by sycophants to be a lion of the conservative movement, was among the strongest proponents of this doctrine. Throughout his presidency, he championed the principle that the federal government ought not to interfere in matters traditionally reserved to the states. He decried federal overreach and emphasized the importance of local control in sectors such as education, transportation, and law enforcement.

In his 1981 Inaugural Address, Reagan declared:

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Yet the “government” to which Reagan referred was not a duly elected state legislature or a democratically accountable local body—it was an overreaching federal bureaucracy, one that imposed itself upon state sovereignty. In stark contrast, Trump’s approach to governance—asserting dominance through federal force, bypassing state laws, and issuing executive mandates that defy local authority—is a direct repudiation of the federalist principles so fervently upheld by Reagan.

Revisiting Civil War Lessons

Our nation has confronted a moment of constitutional crisis before. During the American Civil War, federal authority was rightfully invoked to preserve the Union and to abolish the abhorrent institution of slavery—a system propped up under the guise of “states’ rights.” Then, the moral imperative was clear: liberty and human dignity were at stake.

Today, federal overreach is once again being wielded—but not in service of liberty. It is being used to undermine it. Particularly vulnerable are immigrant communities, many of whom have lived, worked, and contributed to this country for decades. Under Trump’s renewed influence, there are calls to revoke birthright citizenship as protected by the 14th Amendment, especially its cornerstone clause in Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Efforts to reinterpret this clause, and strip away legal protections from those born on our soil, reflect a dangerous ideology—one that seeks to redefine who counts as “American” and who does not. Such actions are not merely constitutionally suspect; they mirror the authoritarian logic wherein legal rights are not guaranteed by law but granted at the discretion of power.

At the heart of this movement are the so-called “Originalists”—a faction of constitutional interpreters who insist that the document must be read strictly as written in the late 18th century, often excluding the amendments and evolutions that have since expanded civil rights and liberties. Their rigidity risks freezing America in an outdated version of itself, one that neglects the growth and progress achieved through decades of amendment, activism, and adjudication.

The Role of the Supreme Court

We now find the Supreme Court standing at a constitutional crossroads. Will it continue to enable executive overreach under the pretense of immunity and national necessity? Or will it reassert its foundational role as a check on power, upholding the structure of governance intended by the Framers of the Constitution?

To fulfill its duty, the Court must move beyond narrow proceduralism and embrace a holistic understanding of the Constitution. Federalism is not a relic of the past—it is a living safeguard against despotism. When we permit one branch—or worse, one individual—to dominate without consequence, we erode the very foundation of our republic.

Conclusion: A Turning Point

This is not merely a legal juncture; it is a moral one. As the Supreme Court resumes its work, it must reflect not only on the letter of the law, but also on the spirit of the Constitution. Will it allow an imperial presidency to rise, in contradiction to Reagan’s cherished principle of dual federalism? Will it condone the federal suppression of state autonomy, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment? Or will it restore balance and accountability to our democratic system?

The answers to these questions will shape more than the legacy of this Court. They may well determine whether our democratic experiment endures—or whether it yields to the creeping autocracy it was created to resist.