The role of the United States Supreme Court extends beyond being the arbiter of federal legal disputes. Traditionally perceived as the entity that resolves disagreements among lower courts, the Court also shapes significant federal law policy decisions. This dual role has once again come into focus as the Court embarks on deliberating high-profile immigration cases during the current term, as examined by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández in
his piece for SCOTUSblog.
According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court intervenes when there is a lack of consensus among lower courts. This is consistent with the Court’s
rules, which prioritize resolving circuit splits or different interpretations of federal law by state courts. However, the decision to hear cases this term, such as the ongoing dispute over President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, highlights a departure from the judiciary’s conventional path. In this case, lower courts uniformly deemed the executive order illegal.
The Court’s approach in cases involving
temporary protected status (TPS) and asylum-seeker rights also underscores this broader evaluative role. The cases, despite significant agreement from lower courts on matters such as the unlawfulness of ending TPS for nationals of certain countries, have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. This raises questions about the criteria used to evaluate cases as compatible with the Court’s long-standing prerogatives.
In what could be interpreted as an assertion of judicial influence in significant federal policies, the Court’s actions contrast with the notion of being a neutral arbiter. Decisions to hear cases like
Barbara, challenging the President’s birthright citizenship directive, and
Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas, concerning asylum seekers at the U.S. border, suggest that imperative public importance criteria drive the Court’s docket choices. These decisions steer the Court’s involvement beyond conflict resolution to framing fundamental legal judgments.
Such a role underscores the evolving function of the Supreme Court in defining federal law amidst political discourse. Its engagement in significant policy debates highlights a more active stance. While cases like those on the emergency docket or the less contentious merit docket dominate media attention, these actions are pivotal for understanding the judiciary’s broader impact on shaping federal policies.