Trump v. United States is so intensely criticized that, in some quarters, it is at risk of being included in the anti-canon. It is alleged to be lawless, partisan, and catastrophically harmful. The case has even pulled off the neat trick of alienating both legal formalists and critics of Trump—two overlapping groups that together make up most of legal culture. Few are left to defend the decision.
I myself am no great admirer of the Court’s ruling, which is likely wrong in at least some important respects and often quite confusing. But I do regard the decision as legally reasonable, judicially responsible, and possibly beneficial.
What moves me to write this post is a sense that the case’s critics are being counterproductive in moving the decision toward anti-canonicity. The case has something, much in fact, to offer its detractors. It may not be a hero in its critics’ story of the law, but neither should it be counted as a villain.