Since Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to President Donald Trump on January 20, one question has loomed: would the nation’s highest court serve as a check on a president determined to reshape the constitutional order?
Six months into Trump’s second term, the answer appears to be no.
In a string of sweeping decisions this month, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with Trump, upholding his authority to fire independent regulators, dismantle federal agencies like the Department of Education, and deport migrants to countries where they have no citizenship or ties — even if those countries are unstable or dangerous.
The rulings have deepened divisions among the nine justices, exposing bitter personal and ideological rifts. Written opinions have included sharp condemnations from the liberal justices, and public appearances have hinted at mounting personal strain.
In the most consequential ruling yet regarding Trump’s executive orders, the court’s conservative majority curtailed the power of lower court judges to issue broad injunctions, effectively easing the way for the administration to pursue controversial policies like ending birthright citizenship.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rebuked district judges for overstepping, stating, “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” Her opinion reversed multiple lower court decisions that had blocked Trump’s policies.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting, said the majority had effectively pushed lower courts aside, undermining their constitutional role. “The majority has shoved lower court judges out of the way,” she wrote.
Just last week, the court’s conservative bloc went further, allowing Trump to remove Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who were confirmed by the Senate and still serving their terms. The court cited a precedent it set earlier this year when it greenlit Trump’s removal of officials from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Notably, the majority avoided addressing the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which protects independent agency members from arbitrary removal — a precedent lower courts remain bound to follow.
In its unsigned July 23 order, the court signaled its evolving stance: “The Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, warning that such moves facilitate “the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.”
On July 14, the court similarly dismissed legal challenges to Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education, ignoring lower court arguments that only Congress has the power to eliminate an entire federal department.
The liberal justices responded with a pointed 19-page dissent emphasizing the agency’s central role in ensuring equal access to education. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”
Despite widespread concern from district and appellate judges, the conservative justices have shown little hesitation about backing Trump’s executive actions — even when they implicate longstanding constitutional rights. They declined to express any direct concern about Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, choosing instead to restrict the ability of lower courts to halt such policies.
That June 27 ruling, which clipped the use of nationwide injunctions, is already shaping cases related to the birthright issue as they work their way through the courts.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson have not been shy in voicing their frustration. In a recent deportation case, Sotomayor warned that sending migrants to South Sudan could result in “torture or death.” In a speech earlier this year, she confessed to retreating to her chambers in tears after certain rulings. Jackson, speaking publicly this month, said she lies awake at night worrying about “the state of our democracy.”
Tensions on the court are also becoming personal. In the birthright citizenship ruling, Barrett dismissed Jackson’s dissent as “tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,” adding that her position was difficult to define. Jackson fired back, accusing the majority of turning the case into a “mind-numbingly technical query” and suggested they had cast district judges — not the president — as the real power-hungry actors.
Roberts signed onto Barrett’s full opinion. If there is any deference on this court, it appears to be reserved not for the federal judiciary or the court’s liberal minority — but for President Donald Trump.
