While reading about the deluge of Donald Trump's activities in office, I often encounter a line to the effect of: "Trump's progress has been slowed/rolled-back/thwarted by the courts." I have also encountered the idea that Trump's preference to pass law by executive order (or Musk fiat), bypassing his legislature, is laying a weak legal foundation for his policies.
Such arguments overlook Trump's perverse underlying strategy, which is essentially a gamble. In passing blatantly illegal laws and policies (Jesus, the phrase "illegal laws" is surely an indicator of how far we're sliding), Trump is setting the stage for Supreme Court rulings on the legality of his actions. Given the Supreme Court's fealty to Trump and their newfound (or newly intensified) disregard for judicial precedents, it is quite likely they will support much of his agenda.
Even tabling the personal dispositions of members of the Supreme Court, there are real political risks involved in ruling against the legality of Trump's actions. The Trump Administration has already shown its willingness to disregard the rulings of lower courts, and members of the Trump camp are already openly discussing ignoring future Supreme Court rulings they might disagree with (รก la Andrew Jackson's "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.")
If the Supreme Court allows the most blatantly illegal parts of Trump's agenda to stand, they will make a (further) mockery of the rule of law. If they try to flex their independence, they risk losing any appearance of it, joining Congress as an essentially subsidiary branch of government. In short, we seem to be pretty fucked.
266