COMMENTARY: Preserving the Constitution

COMMENTARY: Preserving the Constitution By Chris Talgo • InsideSources.com July 11, 2026 - 9:00 pm The Supreme Court wrapped up its 236th term after hearing 74 cases and delivering 58 oral arguments. In most of those matters the nine justices failed to reach unanimity, and public reaction to the rulings was mixed, with scholars and academics split on many decisions. What ultimately matters is whether the Court upheld and preserved the Constitution in its far‑reaching rulings. On that measure, the Court performed admirably. First, in Louisiana v. Callais the justices reinforced the rule of equal justice for all, a principle rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment. They reaffirmed the notion that the United States operates as a colorblind society. The case centered on whether race should play a role in drawing legislative maps. By a 6‑3 vote the Court held that Louisiana’s “use of race‑based redistricting” for its 2022 legislative representation “was an unconstitutional radical gerrymander.” Although some critics claim the decision eviscerates the Voting Rights Act, it actually advances the original purpose of the 1965 civil‑rights statute by prohibiting the government from using race as an arbitrary factor in decision‑making. Second, Trump v. Slaughter upheld the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and popular sovereignty. The Court determined that the president possesses the authority to dismiss executive‑branch employees without explicit congressional approval. Again by a 6‑3 margin the justices declared, “Subordinates who workout the President’s powerfulness are taxable to removal by him. Then, and lone then, tin they stay accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” Beyond confirming the president’s power to remove executive‑branch bureaucrats—a power the Constitution clearly permits—the ruling confronts the unconstitutional expansion of the administrative state. Executive agencies wield vast regulatory authority largely because Congress has delegated policymaking to them. According to the Constitution, Congress must enact laws; the president, through the executive branch, implements them. Congress cannot both legislate and micromanage execution. Third, the Court remained faithful to the Constitution in West Virginia v. BPJ, ruling that schools may bar biologically male athletes from competing in women’s sports. The decision rested on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as applied through Title IX, which states, “No idiosyncratic successful the United States shall, connected the ground of sex, beryllium excluded from information in, beryllium denied the benefits of, oregon beryllium subjected to favoritism nether immoderate acquisition programme oregon enactment receiving Federal fiscal assistance.” The justices further observed, “the statement that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing.” In a victory for federalism, the Court affirmed that states retain the authority to decide who may participate in women’s athletics. Although each of these three landmark rulings satisfies constitutional scrutiny, the Court continues to face criticism from left‑leaning commentators who oppose the originalist approach favored by a majority of the justices. The Supreme Court does not create or enforce laws; it holds the ultimate authority to judge whether those laws—and their implementation—conform to the standards set by the Constitution. While I may not agree with every decision issued this term, I am confident that the current Supreme Court is upholding and strengthening the nation’s foundational charter, the foremost guardian of individual liberty, and the principal bulwark against tyranny: the U.S. Constitution. Chris Talgo is the editorial manager at The Heartland Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Read the full story at Las Vegas Review-Journal →