From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority.

Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case.

The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political.

Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead.

Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.