There’s a significant issue with the U.S. Supreme Court. A pretty big one, actually. It seems there’s a tendency to overlook matters that extend beyond just conservative views and precedent—precedents that, ironically, this very court has set itself. This isn’t just a concern for political ideologies; it’s a problem that touches all Americans, particularly those who practice law.

The highest court hasn’t offered much clarity. To put it differently, it really doesn’t justify decisions based simply on paperwork, and while the decisions it makes can appear either robust or flimsy, the implications are serious. Perhaps the most notable instance was when the Roberts Court lifted a lower court’s hold, allowing the Trump administration to push forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor, alongside three other liberal justices, laid out the reasoning behind their disagreement. Interestingly, none of the conservative majority provided any justification for their stance.

Let’s step back for a moment and try to look at this without the typical partisan lens that often colors discussions about recent Supreme Court rulings. This isn’t merely an ideological issue; it’s a question of functionality.

The U.S. Department of Education was established through a Congressional Act in 1979, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Every year, Congress funds the department and its programs properly. Congress can opt to abolish, revise, or alter the act whenever it wants. It can even fire all employees within the department. Yet, there’s one thing that they—or anyone else—cannot do.

That’s right: the President of the United States can’t just decide to eliminate it. According to the “faithful execution” clause of the Constitution, it’s the president’s duty to ensure that laws are enforced. So, effectively, the President is tasked with upholding Congress’s decisions.

However, Donald Trump seemingly went against this principle in his attempt to dismantle the Department of Education, which might be interpreted as a violation of that clause. Although, if you were to consider it, there’s a solid argument to be made that his actions haven’t outright breached it. Sure, these discussions can vary, and many think they deserve a fair hearing in court, situating them in the broader context of constitutional governance.

Two lower courts previously examined the case and validated Trump’s choice to dismiss 1,400 DOE employees, with his statement suggesting that he intended to disband the Department unless Congress approved him to do so.

This acknowledgment was never given, even though Republicans dominated both houses of Congress. Why? Because these lawmakers recognize, just as we do, that federal oversight and funding for programs aimed at disadvantaged children are often what keep many rural schools afloat, especially in those predominantly red states. They also understand that losing these funds could have a politically dangerous—if not ethically troubling—backlash with their voter base.

Even if one chooses to overlook all of that, it’s crucial that a court provides a rationale when granting or denying the President the latitude to act as Trump has. This needs thorough examination. The court’s perspective must be direct.

This shouldn’t come from so-called “shadow dockets,” where emergency petitions are decided in a hasty manner. The highest courts really shouldn’t lift dubious restrictions without providing some kind of justification, particularly when reversing a lower court that’s trying to pause actions considered harmful or possibly unlawful.

We’re not living in a monarchy here. It’s the judicial system’s job to make sure that one of the closest roles in our government, the President, operates firmly within constitutional limits.

So, if you’re going to ignore that responsibility, at the very least, provide an explanation.