Just like how the courts prevented mass surveillance and illegal authorization of war.

If the federal government only did those things specifically authorized to it in the Consitution, it would be about 1% of its present size, and nobody would care about national elections.

Correct. Hopefully, we can get closer to that.

People seem to be forgetting that cryptographic algorithms were export restricted for a VERY long time.

Trump certainly can't block Americans from selling cryptographic algorithims (or anything which implements those algorithms) if the consumer is also american.

But preventing the communication of those algorithms to foreign nationals is something that was done for several decades.

I think its a terrible thing for him to try to do, but he would have some legal grounds to stand on, provided the restrictions are related to foreign nationals only.

If my memory serves correctly, it was protected right up until Phil Zimmerman circumvented them by writing a book containing the source code for PGP and winning the case based upon the argument that the book was protected by his constitutional right to freedom of speech(?)

Unfortunately, you can't put the cat back in the bag. It's no good putting export restrictions on encryption when the tightest encryption we have at present is already available all round the world.

The law had different purpose, to prevent other countries from obtaining good encryption algorithms. That law didn't forbid developing encryption software abroad and downloading it.

reasonable courts are no longer a given, or even a safe assumption

Trump has assigned his judges so you may be in for a surprise.

Trump has assigned judges? Source?

That is far different from him having assigned the judges that will hear this case. And if you're thinking that it will wind up at the Supreme Court (which is likely), well, Trump appointed 2 out of 9. So "Trump has assigned his judges" still seems like a mis-characterization of the situation.

Anyone that thinks the SCOTUS, as it is currently comprised, will allow for a ban on encryption has no idea what the legal doctrine of The Federalist Society is, nor what it means to be an American conservative. This is the most libertarian court we've had in decades.

Talking about judges as being "assigned" is both inaccurate and betrays an ignorance of the American system.

Are you calling me delusional?

They ruled states have the freedom to design their own voting districts. State sovereignty has always been a thing in the US.

I would encourage you to read the historical documents of the country where many of these constitutional arguments were had: The Federalist Papers