The Supreme Court as a Check on Trump’s Presidency

The Supreme Court’s Role During Trump’s Presidency

In light of the tumultuous events that transpired during President-elect Trump’s first term, it’s easy to overlook the significant ways in which the Supreme Court acted as a counterbalance to his administration. Throughout those chaotic years, the court stood firm against several of Mr. Trump’s initiatives.

For instance, it effectively thwarted Mr. Trump’s initial attempts to impose a travel ban on individuals from six predominantly Muslim countries, ensuring that the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination were upheld. Additionally, the court blocked his effort to include a controversial citizenship question on the 2020 census, a move that critics argued could undermine the accuracy of the census count and disproportionately affect immigrant communities.

The justices also played a crucial role in protecting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which safeguards young individuals brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, allowing them to pursue their dreams and contribute to society. In a high-stakes subpoena dispute, the court ruled against Mr. Trump, affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Moreover, during the post-2020 election turmoil, the Supreme Court refrained from intervening in the myriad legal challenges brought forth by Mr. Trump and his supporters, demonstrating a commitment to the electoral process and the rule of law.

While Mr. Trump did win some notable cases during his tenure, his overall record before a court predominantly appointed by Republican presidents was surprisingly lackluster.

As we look ahead to the possibility of Mr. Trump assuming office for a second term on January 20, it appears that the dynamics may shift dramatically. With Republicans poised to regain control of both chambers of Congress, and with diminished moderating influences within Mr. Trump’s own party, it is likely that the Supreme Court will once again find itself as the last bastion of resistance against the administration’s more extreme ambitions.

However, this time the challenge for the court — and indeed for the Republic as a whole — is that it may be significantly more difficult for the justices to assert their authority, even if they are inclined to do so. A stark decline in public confidence in the court has been evident, fueled not only by contentious rulings but also by ethical concerns surrounding the behavior of certain justices.

The crux of the issue lies in a troubling question: what happens if Mr. Trump chooses to disregard a ruling from the highest court when it contradicts his agenda? This scenario was once considered largely hypothetical, yet it gained traction following remarks by vice president-elect JD Vance in a 2021 interview. He suggested that if Mr. Trump were to face judicial opposition, he could take a page from history and publicly declare, “The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,” reminiscent of Andrew Jackson’s defiance of judicial authority.