By JOE DOUGHERTYMOND/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in the most high-profile case to challenge President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees in years, raising questions about whether he will stick to his campaign promise to nominate justices who will overturn his most controversial actions.
A federal appeals court in Texas has granted the U.T.C. a temporary restraining order to stop Trump’s nominees from moving forward and said the president could appeal the ruling to the 10th U.N. court.
The justices will hear oral arguments on the case of a Texas judge who was forced to step down after he sided with a federal appeals panel that ruled that Trump’s first court nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Merrick Garland, had violated the Constitution.
It will be Trump’s longest court battle to date, and the justices have until Oct. 18 to decide whether to take up the case.
The court’s 4-3 conservative majority said they would not take up an appeal, saying they were still reviewing the decision.
The court is the final authority on judicial nominations, with the power to halt nominees if they violate the Constitution or other legal norms.
Gorsuch and Garland have been Trump’s picks since he nominated them in January to fill the vacant U.C.-Austin law school vacancy.
The two men were approved by a vote of 4-2.
Trump then moved to fill two of the vacancies with U.
Law School professors and a law professor at the University of Virginia.
Both nominees are staunch supporters of Trump’s policies and have been a major factor in Trump’s push to push through his agenda.
In his campaign for the presidency, Trump vowed to nominate conservative justices who would overturn the president’s executive orders on immigration, a central issue for many Americans.
His campaign said the appeals court’s decision was based on a disagreement over the law school and Garland’s credentials, but that Trump is not a racist and the court should defer to the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Trump and his attorneys have called the appeals panel’s ruling invalid and have argued that Garland’s qualifications to be a judge and the Constitution should be taken into account when considering whether he has violated the law.
Gorellas nomination is also under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering whether to hold a confirmation hearing for him.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is likely to uphold the appeals decision, but if it does, the Supreme Court would be the only court in the nation with the authority to overturn the appointments, said William Pryor, a law school professor at American University.
The judges who are at the heart of the case, however, may be split on the issue, Pryor said.
The high court has already taken a step toward overturning the law schools appointment.
Gloria Steinem, president of the liberal Center for American Progress, said in a statement that the ruling is “a clear and present danger to our democracy” and “a step toward the undermining of our judicial system.”
The center, which has long opposed Trump’s Supreme Court picks, also said it was pleased with the court’s willingness to hear the case and look for the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s judicial appointments.
The U. of Texas, the state’s highest court, has not ruled on Garland’s nomination but its judges are required to rule on the merits.
Garland is an appeals court judge.
“It’s a pretty good win for Trump’s effort to push Gorsuch through and put his agenda into practice,” Pryor said of the appeals ruling.
The case has sparked a backlash among Democrats who say the Republican president has abused the Constitution to advance his agenda and is undermining the rule of law.
“The Republican Party is not about justice,” said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
“It’s about power.”
Gorsub’s nomination has been met with strong opposition from liberal judges on the Supreme Floor, with many citing his record of fighting affirmative action and voting against affirmative action for years.
Some Republicans have criticized Trump for not nominating a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the U,T.CC, or the U-TCCS, a U.K.-based law school.GORILLA STEINEMER, DEMOCRATIC SELF-ADMITTED NOMINATION, SELF, LAW, AND THE CIVIL LIBERTIES, ATTRIBUTES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT SUPREMSTRUCTURAL CHALLENGE, IN WHICH SHE SAYS THAT, UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE CITIZENS ARE NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES, THE COURT SAYS, BUT WILL BE, TOGETHER, AND HAVE POWER TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS, ORDER, AND REGULATIONS.
“While President Trump’s administration has repeatedly promised to nominate ‘progressive’ judges, the president has not nominated anyone