The US Supreme Court dealt Donald Trump a mixed verdict today, handing him one victory but three significant defeats in a series of rulings that have reignited debate over the independence of the judiciary. For working families in Britain, the contrast with our own system is stark: where American judges are increasingly seen as partisan pawns, UK courts remain a bulwark against executive overreach.
Trump’s sole win came in a case concerning tax return access, where the court blocked a lower court order requiring his accounting firm to hand over records to Congress. But the losses cut deeper. The court ruled against his administration on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, allowing 700,000 undocumented immigrants to stay. It also rejected his attempt to end birthright citizenship and struck down a rule that would have made it harder for workers to sue their employers for discrimination.
These decisions matter on these shores. The DACA ruling, for instance, echoes our own Windrush scandal. Both involve the arbitrary denial of rights to people who built their lives in a country. And the discrimination ruling resonates with every worker who has faced an unfair boss with too much power.
The British model, where judges are appointed on merit and avoid the partisan confirmation battles that plague Washington, has protected us from the worst of this. Our Supreme Court, led by Lord Reed, has repeatedly stepped in to check government overreach, from prorogation to Brexit. It is a system worth defending.
But complacency is dangerous. The current government’s Judicial Review Bill threatens to weaken these checks, making it harder to challenge executive decisions. If we erode our own judicial independence, we risk following the American path where the courts become just another political football.
For now, the UK can take pride in a legal system that still puts rule of law above party. But it is a fragile blessing. We must guard it as fiercely as we guard our wages and our unions.
