During Trump’s Second Term, Critics of the Supreme Court Will Appreciate Its Restrained Approach

In a rally held in Pennsylvania last September, Donald Trump voiced concerns about Kamala Harris, his Democratic rival, suggesting that she aims to “pack the Supreme Court” to manipulate the judicial system. Trump praised the bravery of the justices following the controversial June 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, stating the justices face harsh criticism for their decisions. He labeled this criticism as an attack, suggesting that those who challenge the judicial decisions should face severe consequences, illustrating a selective reverence for the Supreme Court that hinges on rulings that align with his preferences. Thus, while he champions “Fair and Independent Courts” when it suits him, his fluctuating respect for the judicial system presents challenges to constitutional principles during his potential second term, showcasing a significant concern regarding judicial independence and Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.

Throughout Trump’s tenure, consistency in his respect for the Supreme Court has been highlighted by instances of personal disappointment when decisions do not favor him. He expressed public outrage at two of his appointed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, after they sided against him in a subpoena case concerning his tax returns, showing a tendency to lash out at any perceived disloyalty from those he appointed. This fictional sanctity he attributes to the Supreme Court deteriorates when he feels personally wronged, underscoring a precarious relationship between the executive branch and judicial independence—a dynamic that could become increasingly contentious in a hypothetical second term. Trump’s insistence on the “SACRED United States Supreme Court” as a protective institution exists only in a context favorable to him, raising questions about his commitment to the independent judiciary.

In stark contrast to Trump’s antagonistic views on dissent, the role of the Supreme Court in maintaining constitutional principles remains critical. His calls for intervention against those who criticize judicial decisions highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech rights. Trump’s past suggestions—such as jailing individuals for flag desecration—clash directly with First Amendment protections, firmly established by prior Supreme Court rulings. Moreover, his ongoing lawsuits, including an unfounded claim against CBS for editorial decisions, shed light on his struggle to reconcile negative press with freedom of expression. Even when pursued through sympathetic courts, these legal efforts appear misguided given the historical precedence of press protections.

Trump’s aspirations to retaliate against media organizations through revocation of broadcast licenses unveil a further alarming dimension to his governance philosophy. If he attempts to manipulate the Federal Communications Commission under his control, legal recourse would likely emerge, as courts may be inclined to uphold First Amendment rights against potential abuses of power. His frustrations regarding defamation cases against media portrayal reveal a broader challenge in navigating legal frameworks intended to safeguard free speech while seeking personal accountability. The “actual malice” standard, rooted in decades of judicial interpretation, remains a significant barrier for Trump and poses ongoing implications for public discourse and political accountability.

Despite past judicial victories supporting his agenda, including rulings on election integrity and immigration policy, the Supreme Court’s independence stands as a critical safeguard against executive overreach. Historical context shows a pattern of judicial pushback against Trump’s policies during his initial tenure, reminding observers that the institution has served, at times, as a formidable counterweight to executive authority. Recent decisions, such as those addressing the limits of presidential powers, indicate a judicial branch that may prove resilient against potential abuses, necessitating a careful examination of how the courts will respond to future challenges raised by an emboldened Trump.

The recent dismantling of the Chevron doctrine by the Supreme Court may serve as another meaningful check on executive discretion, particularly if Trump returns to power. This doctrine had previously granted agencies leeway in interpretations of ambiguous laws, which may have facilitated more authoritarian regulatory measures. However, as accountability mechanisms shift following this repudiation, the balance of regulatory power could tilt toward increased scrutiny of executive actions. The implications of this change suggest that while Trump’s policies may provoke substantial public debate and potential unrest, the courts may retain the authority to impose necessary limitations, reinforcing the principle of law against executive whims while promoting a stronger commitment to constitutional governance. Overall, the role of an independent judiciary emerges as a vital element in maintaining the balance of power in a dynamic political landscape, especially with a figure like Trump re-engaging with the political scene.