Trending
New Policies by the Trump Administration Involving the Potential Intersection of Religious and Political Speech Highlight Unresolved Tensions Between Free Exercise and Free Speech Doctrines
New Policies by the Trump Administration Involving the Potential Intersection of Religious and Political Speech Highlight Unresolved Tensions Between Free Exercise and Free Speech Doctrines
By and
Cert. Before Judgment—Is Justice Kavanaugh Right in Suggesting This is an Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Cert. Before Judgment—Is Justice Kavanaugh Right in Suggesting This is an Idea Whose Time Has Come?
By and
The Question We Must Never Ask
The Question We Must Never Ask
By
Steven D. Schwinn
Steven D. Schwinn

Steven D. Schwinn teaches constitutional law at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School. He edits the American Constitution Society Supreme Court Review and the Constitutional Law Prof Blog. He focuses on the separation of powers, and he's finalizing a book on the separation of powers in the Trump administration.

Columns by Steven D. Schwinn
Permalink to The Court’s Power Grab Over Independent AgenciesThe Court’s Power Grab Over Independent Agencies
The Court’s Power Grab Over Independent Agencies

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent emergency-docket rulings that, without explanation, allow the Trump administration to remove independent agency officials, potentially dismantling key regulatory bodies, while disregarding a foundational 1935 precedent supporting the autonomy of such agencies. Professor Schwinn argues that by acting without transparency or justification, the Court undermines the constitutional balance of powers, weakens congressional authority, and damages its own legitimacy and credibility.

Permalink to Whiplash in the Court’s Ruling on the Dismantling of the Education DepartmentWhiplash in the Court’s Ruling on the Dismantling of the Education Department
Whiplash in the Court’s Ruling on the Dismantling of the Education Department

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, despite a legal challenge from states arguing that the move violates federal law and the Constitution. Professor Schwinn asserts that the Court’s approval of such broad executive action—without addressing its legality—contrasts sharply with its earlier rejection of President Joe Biden’s more modest student debt relief plan, revealing a troubling inconsistency and potential partisan bias in the Court’s reasoning.

Permalink to The Court’s Partisan Rules on Executive PowerThe Court’s Partisan Rules on Executive Power
The Court’s Partisan Rules on Executive Power

Steven D. Schwinn, a professor of law at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School argues that the Supreme Court’s order last week effectively striking down the COVID-19 eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control reflects the Court’s highly partisan approach to executive authority. Professor Schwinn points out that only partisanship can explain why Court upheld the Trump administration’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii and struck down the Biden administration’s eviction moratorium.

Permalink to Trump’s Manipulation of the CourtsTrump’s Manipulation of the Courts
Trump’s Manipulation of the Courts

Steven D. Schwinn, a professor of law at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School, explains how the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing the Trump administration to proceed with efforts to exclude undocumented aliens from the census is consistent with the administration’s manipulation of the courts to achieve illegal policy. Professor Schwinn describes why that the Court’s ruling in the census case is an appropriate bookend to the travel ban ruling he received early in his presidency.