The latest Supreme Court term, which ended on Tuesday, surely must have been a deep disappointment for those who argue the court is in the thrall of political puppet masters.

In decision after decision in the term that began October 6, the high court asserted a degree of institutional independence that undercuts the idea its jurists are merely politicians in judicial robes.

The problem with Burnham’s call for kinder, gentler politics

Why Scots will never support England at the World Cup

Why shouldn’t Queen Camilla meet J.K. Rowling?

At bottom, the issues before the court were characterized by Trump’s attempts to vastly expand presidential authority and efforts by states, political opponents and others to rein him in.

In the end, the match was a draw.

This court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, of course tilts right and has handed down decisions on migrant asylum claims and executive power, among others, that are celebrated by Republicans. Yet on the last day, it dealt Trump a setback by ruling against his executive order banning birthright citizenship.

On key elements of President Trump’s agenda, the court also has made clear it will put up roadblocks when it finds Trump overstepped statutory or constitutional boundaries.

This was so on several issues central to Trump’s governing agenda. In rulings this term, the court found there was no basis in the law for his attempts to unilaterally impose tariffs on US trading partners, fire a member of the Federal Reserve and send federal troops to cities over the objections of the governors of those states. The court also pushed back against the administration’s demand that mail in ballots that arrive after election day not be counted.

While Trump lost on the federal reserve, birthright citizenship and tariffs, he won on the question of racial gerrymandering, a decision that will cost Democrats a half dozen or........

© The Spectator