Can the Supreme Court Uphold the Rule of Law? Chief Justice Roberts’s Year-End Report Offers Clues “`

Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, numerous federal judges blocked elements of his agenda. These judges, acting to uphold the rule of law, countered actions ranging from executive orders impacting immigrant children’s rights to initiatives aimed at government efficiency. However, the Trump administration is resisting these judicial actions. For example, a court ordered the administration to release frozen federal funds. Vice President Vance and even Musk have voiced opposition to these rulings, prompting concerns about maintaining the rule of law and the Supreme Court’s role in this.

Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024 year-end report may offer insight. Roberts stressed the rule of law’s importance to the political system and economy, highlighting threats to judicial independence, including potential disregard for court orders. The fact that he needed to emphasize these points reflects the challenging political climate and expectations surrounding the new administration.

However, Roberts’ report lacks reflection on the Supreme Court’s contribution to the current state of democracy and its diminished public standing. This introspection is essential for the Court to effectively check President Trump’s power.

Roberts cited Justice Kennedy’s assertion that judicial independence allows judges to act as duty demands, not as they please. When Supreme Court justices deviate from established constitutional interpretations, expand their authority excessively, and make decisions undermining democracy, Hamilton’s warning about potential injustice becomes highly relevant.

The Court’s recent decisions illustrate this potential for partisan actions. Regarding abortion rights, the 2022 ruling overturned decades of precedent, disregarding the opinions of numerous previous justices. The majority disregarded Roberts’ call for a narrower ruling, eliminating abortion rights entirely.

Similarly, the Court’s rulings on gun safety have shifted the balance of power, limiting legislative authority to address gun violence. A 2022 decision further restricted this power, deeming gun safety legislation unconstitutional if no such law existed in 1791. The Court’s overturning of a bump stock ban, as Justice Sotomayor noted, will have serious consequences, ironically fueling support for politicians advocating for “law and order” while enabling more guns on the streets.

Concerning free and fair elections, the Court’s decisions have weakened safeguards against gerrymandering, even racial gerrymandering, and the influence of big money in politics. Musk’s significant spending in the 2024 election and his current role in the administration highlight the potential for wealthy individuals to exert undue influence through primary challenges.

The Court’s creation of a broad executive privilege, unprecedented in scope, contradicts the principle of equal justice. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent highlights the creation of a “law-free zone” around the president. Furthermore, the Court’s narrow interpretation of anti-corruption laws allows for the acceptance of gratuities by officials, a ruling criticized by Justice Jackson.

The Justices have also resisted implementing a binding ethics code, despite instances of financial conflicts of interest affecting their impartiality.

Roberts concluded his report by emphasizing the courts’ role in maintaining public confidence. The Supreme Court’s ability to fulfill this critical function will be crucial, requiring it to protect democracy and constitutional rights impartially.

“`