Americast (BBC)

Episode: Will the US Supreme Court stand up to Trump?

Date: February 13, 2026
Hosts: Justin Webb, Anthony Zurcher
Special Guest: Professor Kate Shaw (former Supreme Court clerk, University of Pennsylvania Law School, co-host of Strict Scrutiny)

Overview

In this incisive episode, the Americast team explores the evolving role of the US Supreme Court under President Trump’s second administration. The hosts and their guest, Professor Kate Shaw, analyze whether the Court—now boasting a strong conservative majority—will act as a check on Trump’s expansive vision of presidential powers, or instead continue to endorse and enable his controversial executive actions. The discussion delves into recent and pending Supreme Court cases with vast impact on US law and governance, from trade tariffs and federal appointments to birthright citizenship. The conversation also tackles deeper questions of judicial legitimacy, historic precedent, and the potential for future political clashes over the makeup and power of the highest court.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. Is the Supreme Court Acting as Trump’s Ally?

[00:38–02:18]

• The episode opens with Justin questioning whether the Supreme Court is a “body of disinterested jurists,” “lackeys doing the work of Donald Trump,” or something in between.
• Recent Supreme Court decisions have largely favored the Trump administration, with examples including:
  • Access to Social Security data.
  • Slashing federal research funding.
  • Allowing the military ban on transgender troops.
• This record raises the crucial question: Is this Supreme Court ever going to stand up to Donald Trump or is it set on expanding his power?

II. The Supreme Court’s Power & Its Modern Visibility

[04:00–07:46]

• Anthony: Traditionally, the Supreme Court was relatively anonymous and less in the public eye. Now, with a 6–3 conservative majority (three Trump appointees), it plays an outsized and highly visible political role.
  • “Really, I think it's the most conservative Supreme Court that America has had in at least 75 years. And they are flexing their muscle time and time again.” (Anthony, 07:29)
• The Court has significantly shifted legal precedent on abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, federal regulatory power, and more.

III. Historical Precedents: The Court’s Transformation of America

[07:46–10:26]

• The discussion contextualizes the Supreme Court’s power to drive or resist societal change, referencing landmark cases:
  • Brown v. Board of Education (ending school segregation)
  • Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding racial segregation)
  • New York Times v. Sullivan (protecting press freedom)
  • Miranda case (rights of arrested persons)
• The hosts stress: “It is impossible to overstate how important the Supreme Court has been throughout America's history.” (Anthony, 10:23)

IV. Current & Imminent Cases with National Impact

A. The Trade Tariffs Case
[10:26–13:27]

• The Court is soon to decide Donald Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs under emergency economic powers from the 1970s.
• Trump himself calls this case “one of the most important cases in the history of our country... it would be somewhat catastrophic [if we lose]” (Donald Trump, 12:12)
• Oral argument revealed skepticism from some justices about the president’s authority to unilaterally levy tariffs.

B. The Lisa Cook/Federal Reserve Firing Case
[15:47–17:07]

• At issue: Presidential power to fire agency heads with statutory job protections.
• Kate Shaw: “The justices seemed nervous about giving Trump the power to summarily fire the, you know, upend global kind of economy in certain ways...are going to try to find a way to rule against Trump there.” (16:52)

C. Birthright Citizenship Challenge
[19:11–24:14]

• Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented immigrants is under Supreme Court scrutiny.
• Justin voices widespread uncertainty: “Is it fair to say people are less sure that they are going to rule against him necessarily?” (19:59)
• Kate is confident the Court will reject Trump’s theory, which she calls “such an outlandish claim that it's hard to imagine it getting more than zero votes on this Supreme Court.” (20:13)
• There is over 100 years of precedent and clear constitutional and statutory language upholding birthright citizenship.

V. The Evolution of Judicial 'Apostasy' and the Reliability of Partisan Appointments

[13:44–15:47]

• Anthony recounts that in the past, justices sometimes surprised those who appointed them (e.g., Justice Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare).
• Kate agrees, but argues: “The more recent appointees...have been so thoroughly vetted and their views so entirely known...that there are fewer and fewer of these kind of defections.” (15:15)
  • With some exceptions, the current Court is seen as more reliably partisan along ideological lines than before.

VI. Court-Packing: Will the Left Respond?

[25:01–27:34]

• Justin raises whether future Democratic presidents might “pack” the court to counter its current rightward tilt.
• Kate underlines that only Congress can change the number of justices, but thinks calls for expansion are growing:
  • “...it could be a successful effort to essentially assert kind of a meaningful threat against the court... bringing the court to heel, even if it doesn't actually successfully result in a court with 13 or 15 justices.” (26:53)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Really, I think it's the most conservative Supreme Court that America has had in at least 75 years. And they are flexing their muscle time and time again.”
  — Anthony Zurcher (07:29)

• “If five of them agree, that is the final word on the matter.”
  — Anthony Zurcher (05:08)

• “I am not convinced this is the term that the court is going to stand up to Trump or that they really will ever stand up to Trump... the evidence that we have seen so far [doesn't support that].”
  — Professor Kate Shaw (28:18)

• “The president can't do it unilaterally regardless. So I think there are two distinct, at least two distinct reasons that the president, you know, in his day, one executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship is without legal authority....”
  — Professor Kate Shaw (24:14)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:38 – Framing the question: Supreme Court as check or enabler?
• 04:00 – The Supreme Court’s structure and increased political relevance
• 07:46 – Landmark historical cases and the Court’s power to change society
• 10:26 – Discussion of the tariff case’s significance and the suspense over the ruling
• 12:09 – Trump’s direct statement on the tariff case’s importance
• 13:43 – Introduction of Professor Kate Shaw; discussion of historical justice ‘defections’
• 15:47 – The Lisa Cook Federal Reserve firing case and limits of presidential power
• 17:32 – Jerome Powell on the Fed case’s significance
• 19:11 – The challenge to birthright citizenship and its constitutional origins
• 25:01 – The court-packing debate revived on the left
• 27:34 – Final reflections: Will the Court ever stand up to Trump?

Conclusion

This episode offers vital, up-to-the-minute perspectives on the US Supreme Court’s current era, as it faces unprecedented tests of its role as a constitutional check on presidential power. With the Trump administration pushing the boundaries of executive authority—and a conservative Court often appearing to support that expansion—the stakes for checks and balances could not be higher. The panel cautiously concludes that, barring dramatic developments, the current Supreme Court is unlikely to act as a robust brake on Trump’s ambitions. However, legal and political uncertainty remains, especially as new cases are decided and politicians debate reforms to the Court itself.

Episode runtime analyzed: ~00:38–30:01 (content sections only)