In each of these cases, Trump and his team had pushed the boundaries of presidential authority, often incorporating novel or seldom-used legal theories to back up their actions.
Trump’s birthright citizenship revocation cut against more than 125 years of Supreme Court precedent interpreting what most legal scholars thought was clear language in the US constitution.
His tariffs, which were imposed and retracted by presidential decree, collided with recent Supreme Court rulings that major new policies had to be explicitly approved by Congress.
Trump’s attempts to deploy the National Guard were a rare instance of a president trying to do so over the objections of local and state officials. It was nipped in the bud by the court, which weighed in to uphold a lower court’s ruling.
Beneath these landmark cases, however, were a long list of decisions that provided Trump with more incremental – but substantive – expansion of his power and advantaged his fellow conservatives.
“There will be occasional deviations, but I think this is a very strong, very conservative court with the broadest conception of presidential power that we have ever seen,” said Kate Shaw, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.
On Monday, the court’s six conservatives ruled that Trump could dismiss members of regulatory federal agencies Congress had established to be “independent”, based only on policy disagreements.
Although in a separate opinion, the court carved out an exception for members of the powerful Federal Reserve, which sets US monetary policy, the decision will give Trump – and future presidents – increased sway over vast swathes of the federal bureaucracy. They will be able to handpick those who determine labour, election, communications, environmental and financial regulations.
Although Trump didn’t win his big-ticket birthright case, the court’s conservative majority has repeatedly handed the president more power over immigration enforcement.
Last week, it upheld the president’s revocation of temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants – many of whom have been in the US for more than a decade. The court also made it more difficult for refugees to claim political asylum, requiring that they be physically present on US soil to do so.
The court also gave Trump groundbreaking victories when it came to federal elections.
Although the court on Monday declined to block the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by election day but received later – a ruling Trump condemned – it issued other rulings that will greatly advantage his fellow Republicans.
In a decision that was overshadowed by birthright citizenship on Tuesday, the court loosened campaign finance restrictions and limits on how much political parties can spend on candidates.
Given that the national Republican Party currently has more than $125m in its coffers, while its Democratic counterpart is in debt, the decision will give Trump’s side a decided advantage in this year’s midterm congressional elections.
In April, the court’s six conservative justices ruled that congressional districts drawn to give racial minorities more voting power were inherently unconstitutional, striking down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That decision has allowed Republican-controlled southern states to redraw multiple House of Representatives districts to favour their party’s candidates.
Trump may, at times, have been frustrated by this Supreme Court – and by the three jurists he named to their lifetime seats during his first term.
But the court has given him authority that none before him in the White House have been able to wield.
With rumours swirling about the possibility that one of the court’s senior conservative justices may soon retire, Trump may not yet be done leaving his mark on America’s judiciary.
