Obama's losing record at the Supreme Court

Historically, the federal government wins seven of every 10 cases it argues before the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Obama administration is far from typical. It has lost a majority of its cases at the Supreme Court. Many of them show an executive branch trying to expand its power in ever more expansive ways, and a high court that, lately, has provided a check on that overreach.

In the case of Bond v. United States, a woman learned her husband fathered a child with another woman. In retaliation, she put irritating chemicals on things the woman might touch. The other woman wasn’t seriously harmed, but the federal government charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Congress wrote that law to address terrorism.

The 6-3 ruling by the court preserved the state’s authority over such traditional criminal matters.

“The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the federal government to reach into the kitchen cupboard or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. The federal law in question carried severe penalties—up to life in prison and the death penalty. The court agreed it did not apply to simple assault and, if it did, Congress would have exceeded its enumerated powers by writing such a law

Another takedown of executive overreach happened in Riley v. California. The Obama administration argued searching a cell phone was no more intrusive than looking through a person’s pockets after an arrest. The chief justice again delivered the opinion of the court, saying, “Modern cellphones have developed into more than just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in the palm of his hand doesn’t make it any less deserving of protection than that for which the founders fought.” In the unanimous ruling, the court made that protection abundantly clear.

The third ruling reining in the president came in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. President Barack Obama invoked his “recess appointment” powers to place three new members on the labor-relations panel without first getting Senate approval. The Constitution grants this unilateral presidential power only when the Senate is not in session. The President claimed the body was in recess, although the Senate was meeting in shorter sessions. The unanimous opinion delivered a pointed rebuke to a president who insisted he had the authority to say when another branch of government was working.

A pending case will once again test this administration’s reach for greater power. Sometime this spring or summer, the court will decide on King v. Burwell, a case the administration says lacks merit.

The Affordable Care Act’s language says tax credits for health insurance flow only to people who purchased insurance policies from state exchanges. But the IRS made a regulation that lets tax credits go to people who enrolled via the federal exchanges. The issue is whether the IRS exceeded its authority in doing that. If the Supreme Court says it did, it would be another serious blow to the administration. About 5 million Americans who bought coverage through the federal exchanges might lose their health insurance subsidy, and possibly their coverage.

Presidents have almost always tried to push for more power. What’s new, though, is the number of times the Supreme Court has unequivocally and bluntly shut down this president’s attempts. And it’s all the more surprising given Obama appointed to the bench two of the justices voting to shut him down.