Architects of the Trump Supreme Court See Culmination of Conservative Push – The New York Times

A chronicle of Donald Trump's Crimes or Allegations

Architects of the Trump Supreme Court See Culmination of Conservative Push – The New York Times

Supreme Court
Advertisement
Supported by
For Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, sweeping anti-regulatory rulings are the big payoff of their drive to reshape the federal courts.

Carl Hulse wrote a book on the battle over filling Supreme Court seats during the Obama and Trump administrations.
Back in 2016, a colleague handed Donald F. McGahn II, then a top legal adviser to the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, an appeals court opinion that eloquently and powerfully echoed much of what Mr. McGahn saw as the evils of an out-of-control federal bureaucracy.
The opinion from the Denver-based appeals court by the relatively unknown Judge Neil M. Gorsuch suggested it might be time for federal courts to confront the “behemoth” of a longstanding precedent conferring substantial regulatory power on federal officials.
One month later, Mr. McGahn placed Judge Gorsuch on Mr. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees should he be elected.
Four months later, he was President Trump’s first nominee to the high court.
And over the past week, Justice Gorsuch wrote for the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that made sure the behemoth was slain.
While much of the attention to the conservative-dominated court has been about the sweeping decisions it has made to roll back abortion rights and now greatly expand presidential immunity, that was never the main goal for the architects of the effort to pull the judiciary to the right.
For those who led the drive to place Justice Gorsuch and two other conservatives on the court during the Trump administration, a sweeping series of rulings by the Supreme Court this year that shrank the power of federal agencies was the true victory. Their longtime target, the so-called administrative state, has been beaten back with the overturning of the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine and a flurry of other decisions aimed at reining in federal government reach — just as they envisioned it.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Advertisement

source