Podcast Summary: The Ezra Klein Show — "The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab"
September 2, 2025
Host: Ezra Klein
Guest: Kate Shaw (Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania; Co-host, Strict Scrutiny Podcast)

Overview

Ezra Klein and legal scholar Kate Shaw dissect the Supreme Court's dramatic shift in supporting President Donald Trump’s attempts at executive overreach during his second term. The discussion focuses on the Court's unprecedented pattern of ruling in Trump’s favor, the rapid dismantling of administrative and legislative checks, and the implications for American democracy. The conversation explores why the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, is enabling this power grab, the historical roots of these doctrines, and what options (if any) remain to reform or check presidential power.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump's Executive Overreach and the Supreme Court’s Response

[00:23]

• Ezra Klein recounts how early in the second Trump term, Trump faced heavy judicial resistance, especially from lower courts.

  “He was asserting all this power because he was actually weak...everywhere else in the government he was likely to be stopped—stopped in Congress and stopped in the courts.”

• However, starting in April, the Supreme Court began siding with Trump in 16 consecutive shadow docket decisions, overturning lower court restraints.

2. Understanding the “Shadow Docket”

[04:54]

• Kate Shaw explains the shadow docket: Supreme Court decisions made rapidly, often in secret and without full briefing, typically in response to emergency requests. These are increasingly central to Trump’s victories.

  “Often in the dead of night, often without any reasoning or written opinion at all, disposes of these requests for emergency relief.”

3. Mass Firing and Agency Dismantling

[05:52]

• Trump’s administration began terminating large swaths of federal employees, overriding civil service protections.
  • The Supreme Court (without full merits consideration) ruled the president can fire senior officials at will, even where statutes provided protection.
• Trump used executive orders to effectively eliminate or gut certain agencies (e.g., USAID, Department of Education), bypassing Congressional authority.

  Shaw: “The idea that [a Democratic president] would just by fiat fire everyone in these agencies and that the court would allow it is...preposterous.” [08:28]

• Supreme Court allowed these moves, often without explanation, undermining statutory frameworks.

4. The Unitary Executive Theory

[10:36]

• The doctrine asserts the president controls the entire executive branch, vertically (all subordinates) and, to some degree, horizontally (despite congressional limits).

  Shaw: “Very broad powers, both vertical and horizontal.”

• Klein notes some merits in the accountability argument but warns of unchecked power.

  “If the President can’t fire people, then in what way is he actually in charge of [the executive branch]?”

5. Deportation, Due Process, and Third Country Removals

[14:41]

• The Court delivered mixed rulings: upholding due process in some high-profile deportation cases but allowing “third country removals” (deporting people to countries with no ties or connection) without adequate process.

  Shaw: “The Supreme Court, with not a word of reasoning, stays that lower court order and allows these third country removals to go forward.” [16:24]

6. Birthright Citizenship and Curtailing Nationwide Injunctions

[17:02]

• Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was ruled “grossly unconstitutional” by lower courts.
• Supreme Court did NOT address the merits but instead restricted lower courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions—limiting the ability to halt unconstitutional policies broadly.

  Shaw: “On the very last day of the Supreme Court term...the court basically said, no, lower courts don’t have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.” [19:18]

7. Supreme Court’s Power Discretion and Asymmetry

• The Court now reserves nationwide remedies for itself, giving it discretion to intervene rapidly—or not—depending on its priorities.

  Klein: “So, they get discretion to do it.”
  Shaw: “Exactly...but the Supreme Court can do it.” [23:19]

• This enables the court to facilitate (or block) major actions based on timing and perceived partisan advantage.

8. Precedent for Future Presidents

[24:10]

• Klein raises the scenario: will Democratic presidents have the same leeway to act quickly?
• Shaw is skeptical, noting court’s likely inconsistency.

9. Expanded Presidential Powers

[27:23]

• The Court’s recent signals:
  • Refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress
  • Firing protected officials and civil servants without cause
  • Dismantling agencies by fiat
  • Using state power to reward friends and punish enemies

  Shaw: “They didn’t think they had the power to disregard statutes passed by Congress and the text of the Constitution.”

10. Supreme Court’s Presumption of “Good Faith”

[30:26]

• Roberts-era Court routinely defers to stated executive rationales, ignoring clear evidence of pretext (e.g., Muslim ban).

  Klein: “You end up with these two political systems—the one that is happening and the one that exists in legal filings to John Roberts.” [30:26] Shaw: “The kind of presumption of good faith and regularity is very much on display.” [31:50]

11. Critique of Lower Courts and Prioritizing Executive Deference

[33:12]

• Roberts and Republican justices seem more concerned by judicial (lower court) overreach than by presidential overreach.

  Klein: “They seem much more concerned about lower courts stopping Donald Trump...than about Donald Trump doing things that are unconstitutional or illegal.”

12. Shadow Docket and Weaponized Naïveté

[35:22]

• Klein: “It just has this quality to me of weaponized naivete... Let’s first assume Donald Trump is an angel and then let’s work from there.”

13. Is Roberts Pragmatic or Enabling?

[36:20]

• Debate: Is Roberts allowing Trump’s power grabs to avoid a constitutional clash, or is he ideologically committed to this new executive model?

14. Roberts’ Legacy: Structuring a “Quasi-Dictatorial Executive”

[38:46]

• Not isolated to recent shadow docket cases: Roberts has authored a body of law (immunity, voting rights, gerrymandering) expanding executive and court power, while limiting Congress and lower courts.

  Shaw: “Expansive authority for both the Supreme Court and the president and sort of limited authority for all other actors...is as good a distillation as Roberts’ philosophy as I think I could offer.” [40:59]

15. Partisan Gerrymandering & Democratic Backsliding

[41:01]

• Supreme Court’s refusal to regulate partisan gerrymandering enables states—especially Texas—to lock in partisan power, undermining democratic accountability.

  Shaw: “Gerrymandering just needs to be resolved in the political process, which is not going to happen... By definition, it needs to be electorally resolved now that you have distorted the elections.” [42:36]

16. What Is Now “On the Table” for Trump?

[43:45]

• E.g., threatening removal of federal judges, targeting the judiciary, manipulation of midterms, even a third term.

  Shaw: “I don’t think [Trump’s] joking when he talks about [a third term]...I wouldn’t rule anything out.” [44:39]

17. Erosion of Democratic Norms and Targeting Political Opponents

• Reports of Democratic officials being arrested, opposition party leaders being investigated or detained.

  Shaw: “That’s targeting the political opposition for the substance of their views...that is something we absolutely have to view as within the realm of the public possible.” [47:01]

18. Interrogating Partisanship on the Court

[52:04]

• Klein: Is this change in doctrine or just party politics with legal dressing?

  Shaw: “For Alito or Thomas...this really is just partisanship. The others, it is more mixed... I have long resisted and am finding it harder to resist...that they really just are partisan justices in support, support of Donald Trump.”

19. Systemic Constitutional Breakdown

[53:33]

• The founders’ design isn’t functioning: Congress unwilling/unable to check executive; Supreme Court refuses to act as real check on executive power.

  “I don’t know what to call that except a breakdown.” [53:33] Shaw: “I don’t think our constitutional order is functioning properly at the moment. And I think the Supreme Court bears a lot of responsibility.” [54:56]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Ezra Klein [00:23]:

  “He was asserting all this power because he was actually weak... For a while that bet looked sort of right. Trump was getting stopped in the courts... But...the Supreme Court has weighed in and it has weighed in overwhelmingly for Donald Trump and the powers he seeks.”

• Kate Shaw [08:28]:

  “The idea that [Obama or Biden] would just by fiat fire everyone in these agencies and that the court would allow it is, I think, kind of preposterous.”

• Ezra Klein [23:19]:

  “So, they get discretion to do it.”

• Kate Shaw [23:20]:

  “Exactly...the Supreme Court can do it. It just feels like wildly kind of debasing...to say we have all this power. And the thing that makes me know we have this power is you’ve said you’ll listen to us.”

• Ezra Klein [30:26]:

  “You end up with these two political systems—the one that is happening and the one that exists in legal filings to John Roberts.”

• Kate Shaw [40:59]:

  “Expansive authority for both the Supreme Court and the president and sort of limited authority for all other actors...is as good a distillation as Roberts’ philosophy as I think I could offer.”

• Ezra Klein [53:33]:

  “I don’t know what to call that except a breakdown.”

• Kate Shaw [54:56]:

  “I don’t think our constitutional order is functioning properly at the moment. And I think the Supreme Court bears a lot of responsibility.”

Important Segments & Timestamps

| Topic | Timestamps | |---|---| | Opening and framing of episode | 00:23–03:36 | | Shadow docket decisions explained | 04:54–05:52 | | Mass firings, agency dismantling | 05:52–10:11 | | Unitary executive theory & its critique | 10:11–14:41 | | Deportation and due process | 14:41–17:02 | | Birthright citizenship fight & nationwide injunctions | 17:02–23:19 | | Supreme Court’s role and discretion | 23:19–27:23 | | Expanding powers & what’s now possible | 27:23–38:46 | | Roberts’ legacy & gerrymandering | 38:46–43:45 | | New frontiers: judges, elections, 3rd term | 43:45–47:01 | | Executive overreach & targeting opposition | 47:01–52:04 | | Partisanship on the Court | 52:04–54:56 | | Constitutional breakdown & reform discussion | 54:56–57:58 | | Recommended reading (Kate Shaw) | 58:01–59:26 |

Recommended Books by Kate Shaw (at Ezra’s request)

[58:01]

1. Lawless by Leah Litman — A scathing critique of the Roberts Court as partisan actors.
2. Vera or Faith by Gary Shteyngart — Near-future dystopian novel featuring constitutional amendment themes.
3. We the People by Jill Lepore — A forthcoming book examining the difficulty and stakes of constitutional amendments.

Takeaway

The episode delivers a deeply informed, sobering analysis of the Supreme Court's facilitation of a historic expansion of presidential power under Trump, the evisceration of the checks and balances foundational to U.S. democracy, and the fading prospects for judicial or congressional constraint. Ezra Klein and Kate Shaw scrutinize both the philosophical and partisan drivers of the Roberts Court, unpack the legal mechanisms undergirding this transformation, and warn of the perilous future now possible—if not yet inevitable—for American constitutionalism.

For listeners seeking a deep, timely, and critical look at the legal and institutional crisis unfolding at the highest levels of the U.S. government, this episode offers a must-listen conversation.