In a decisive move to challenge the growing influence of the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced the No Kings Act, a bold piece of legislation designed to reaffirm Congress’s authority over constitutional interpretation and ensure that no president is exempt from criminal accountability under federal law.
This summer’s controversial decision by the Supreme Court, which extended broad immunity to presidents from federal criminal prosecution, highlights a deeper issue: the Court’s expanding influence on key constitutional matters traditionally within Congress’s domain. From rolling back civil rights protections to curbing the Voting Rights Act, the Court’s actions have increasingly undermined legislative intent and democratic values.
“The No Kings Act is a necessary step to restore the balance of power,” Schumer explained. “It declares that Congress’s constitutional judgment is clear—no president is above the law. It also removes the Court’s jurisdiction to declare this Act unconstitutional, empowering lower federal courts to handle criminal matters involving presidents.”
While the concept of Congress challenging the Supreme Court’s rulings may seem unprecedented, it reflects a longstanding constitutional tradition. Since the early years of the Republic, Congress has exercised its power to shape and, at times, limit the Court’s ability to override legislative decisions. Notable instances include Congress’s response to the Dred Scott decision and its post-Civil War actions to protect Reconstruction-era laws.
Historically, the Court has often deferred to Congress when interpreting the Constitution. This deferential approach, which persisted for over five decades after the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, was only disrupted in the mid-19th century with rulings like Dred Scott v. Sandford, which pushed back against Congress’s powers. Such judicial overreach, as Abraham Lincoln famously argued, risks turning the people’s elected representatives into mere bystanders, with unelected justices making decisions that affect the entire nation.
Today, many experts believe that judicial supremacy has gone too far. In the Voting Rights Act case of 2013, for instance, the Court invalidated a key provision of the Act despite decades of bipartisan support in Congress. Similarly, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court struck down restrictions on corporate spending in elections, sparking fierce debate over the influence of money in politics.
With the No Kings Act, Schumer and other advocates aim to restore Congress’s authority in determining constitutional matters. The Act instructs the courts to presuppose the constitutionality of Congressional laws unless there is clear and undeniable evidence to the contrary. This approach mirrors the system in other democracies, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, where parliamentary decisions hold significant weight over judicial interpretations.
Critics argue that such measures could lead to tyranny by a majority and undermine the protection of minority rights. However, historical precedent suggests that Congress is capable of making laws that safeguard vulnerable populations, and judicial overreach has often harmed, rather than protected, minority groups.
The No Kings Act represents a critical step toward rebalancing the power between the legislature and judiciary. It would not only limit the reach of a Court that has increasingly overridden Congress’s will but also preserve the integrity of a democratic government where the people’s elected representatives have the final say on the laws that govern them.
As the debate continues, advocates believe the No Kings Act will set a powerful precedent for future legislation aimed at ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people, rather than an unelected body of justices.
Read more:
Can The President Remove A Supreme Court Justice?
What Is The Process Of Legislation: In-Depth Explanation
Who Can Veto Legislation Passed By Congress?