Trump and the Supreme Court Could Be Headed for a Showdown

Coming into Donald Trump’s second presidency, it was often assumed that the U.S. Supreme Court would act as a rubber stamp for whatever Trump wanted to do. After all, there are six conservatives on the court, including three justices who were appointed by Trump himself.

However, it hasn’t quite worked out that way so far. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, has sometimes voted against the positions of the president who appointed her to the court, leading to a sometimes-ugly backlash from a MAGA base who seem to believe that judges appointed by Trump owe their loyalty to the president.

Chief Justice John Roberts, also a conservative, has sometimes been willing to buck what the right wants, most notably in the case that upheld Obamacare.

What’s typically happened in previous presidencies is that sometimes the Supreme Court issues rulings that the president agrees with, and other times they don’t. But when that does happen, as happened multiple times in the Biden presidency, with his student loan forgiveness plans and other things, the president is supposed to accept it, because that’s how the separation of powers works.

Trump vs. the Supreme Court: The Immigration Showdown

We haven’t yet had the annual series of court rulings, which typically comes in the summer, on major cases before the Supreme Court, and we will see at that point whether the court goes along with everything that Trump wants.

But a potential confrontation between the president and the highest court in the land, possibly over immigration, could be on the way.

Last weekend, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order concerning the Trump Administration’s deportation plans.

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the court said. The order appeared to represent a 7-2 split on the court, with Justice Alito dissenting and Justice Thomas agreeing; Alito called the ruling a “hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief.”

Judges in lower courts have also ruled against Trump on everything from executive orders to DOGE’s efforts to get certain information from the government.

Many, if not all, of these cases will end up before the Supreme Court. But what if they rule against the administration, and the administration doesn’t agree to go along?

“Two-Timing”

“Trump has been two-timing his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, promising to comply with their rulings (in theory) on immigration matters while openly, flagrantly, not obeying at least one of their rulings (here in the real world),” USA Today columnist Chris Brennan wrote in an op-ed this week.

A different op-ed, on the website of NBC News, looked at what might happen if a president ignored an order by the Supreme Court.

It noted that  District Judge James Boasberg, who is not on the Supreme Court but is presiding over one of the cases, has said there is probable cause to find the administration in contempt of court. It also said that criminal contempt usually requires the cooperation of the Justice Department, which would be unlikely to go along in the Trump Administration, although Judge Boasberg said he would appoint his own attorney if necessary.

Impeach the Judges?

Others have suggested a more radical remedy, from the Trump side: Impeaching federal judges who rule against the president.

Trump has called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg and other judges — “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties” —  as has Elon Musk, and it was enough to occasion public pushback from Chief Justice Roberts in March.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a statement.

About the Author: Stephen Silver

Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has authored thousands of articles that focus on politics, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter

More: Trump Has a New Impeachment Challenge to Fight Off 

More: Analysis – Why Trump Should Be Impeached Now