My first reaction to the Supreme Court’s blockbuster June decisions was that President Donald Trump overplayed his hand. He tried to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, prompting the court to declare, in Trump v. Cook, that the Fed is independent of presidential control. He tried to revoke citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, prompting the court to declare, in Trump v. Barbara, that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps if the president had been more restrained and incremental, he could have avoided such categorical defeats.

But look beyond the top-line of each ruling, and there’s reason to think Trump and his populist agenda are in a better position than they were before. In both cases, Trump unilaterally took aim at a long-settled practice: No president had fired a Fed governor before, and no meaningful political challenge to birthright citizenship existed.

While neither of his shots landed, they came surprisingly close. Only four justices joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s majority opinion rebuking the president in each case. The rulings were sweeping, but the coalition behind them is narrow. Populists now have an opening, and maybe more determination, to keep up the fight on both fronts.

Start with Cook. As part of his campaign to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates, Trump said last year that he was firing Lisa Cook, a........

© Washington Post