The Supreme Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional—its main function today—is not explicitly mentioned in Article 3. This power of judicial review was established by the Court itself in the early 19th century, fundamentally shaping its role in the U.S. government's balance of powers.

Congress can alter the number of Supreme Court justices and even limit the types of cases the court can hear—a power known as "jurisdiction stripping"—through simple legislation. Despite this authority, a deep-seated political norm has prevented Congress from exercising it aggressively, leaving its full constitutional extent untested.

Each Supreme Court justice employs four elite, recent law school graduates as clerks. These young, unelected individuals hold immense responsibility, making preliminary judgments on which cases the court should hear and writing the first drafts of opinions that shape American law—a reality not contemplated by the Constitution.

By positioning itself as a platform agent, Apple sidesteps legal precedents that would limit who can sue for anti-competitive pricing. This shifts legal liability to developers, as consumers become the "direct purchasers" with legal standing to sue them over App Store prices.

The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.

While the base case is that the President would replace tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court, there's a growing possibility he won't. The administration could use the ruling as a politically convenient way to reduce tariffs and address voter concerns about affordability without appearing to back down on trade policy.

Janet Napolitano argues that recent Supreme Court doctrines presume a level of legislative clarity and capability that doesn't exist in modern politics. By expecting Congress to legislate with extreme precision on all major issues, the Court ignores institutional dysfunction and creates a standard the legislative branch cannot meet.

The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.

The Court increasingly uses an "emergency" or "shadow" docket for major decisions. These rulings bypass oral arguments and full briefings, often resulting in orders with little to no explanation. This practice contradicts the judicial branch's claim to legitimacy, which is based on reasoned persuasion, not just power.