Trump's ally, John Roberts, aided his power. Now, he aspires to control him.
All road's keep leading us back to ol' John Roberts and ol' Donnie Trump, huh?
It was the Chief Justice himself, you guessed it, who wrote the Supreme Court decision last year that gave Trump a sweet, juicy get-out-of-jail-free card when it came to criminal prosecution. But just this week, it was Roberts again setting the tone, steering the court in its approach to litigation surrounding President Trump's executive orders. He refused to give Trump's peeps the quickie endorsement they were hoping for.
Since the beginning of Trump's first term in 2017, Roberts has been a bit of a blurred line. He's been both an enabler and restraint on Trump's agenda.
After keeping mum for weeks about Trump's nasty rants against the judiciary, Roberts was ticked off on Tuesday by a fiery post. Trump called a federal judge currently overseeing a migrant deportation case "crooked," and even suggested impeachment – what a hoot!
Not long after, Roberts fired back with a statement: "For more than two hundred years, it's been clear that impeachment ain't the right move when it comes to disagreement over a judicial decision. We've got other ways to handle that, like, you know, the normal appellate process here."
This little jab was a bit of a lifesaver for US district court judges, who are currently knee-deep in Trump's litigation.
The always-candid Justice Stephen Breyer reckoned Roberts' defense was just what the doctor ordered – finally! Breyer told CNN, "All good now. It's simple: if you ain't digging the judge's call, take it to the appellate court. And then maybe the Supreme Court. Boom, done."
Trump's been president for a while now, and in that time, he's signed a fair few executive orders – most of 'em aimed at making it harder for immigrants, slashing government jobs, and hoarding cash from Congress. Federal employees, civil rights champions, states, and organizations that get a chunk of public funds have all sued. Most of the cases are still working their way through the court system, but so far, Roberts and a broad spectrum of justices have shown a taste for moderation and compromise.
This is a big change from that 6-3 decision back in July that practically let Trump off the hook regarding election subversion in 2020. For the moment, it's the lower court judges who are tangled up in challenges to Trump's government overhaul and his headbutting against constitutional boundaries. Sometimes, these judges have been hesitant about how vocal they wanna be in calling out Trump's shenanigans.
One case brewing right now has really got Trump's goat. US District Court Judge James Boasberg is examining some weekend deportations carried out by Trump's administration on migrants suspected of gang ties. Boasberg wants to make sure the administration didn't break an earlier order that shoulda stopped these deportations under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act.
Clearly, this case is striking a nerve. Trump called Boasberg "a Radical Left nutcase wearing a judge's fancy robe," and declared the judge oughta be impeached. But as Breyer and Roberts made clear, the process for anyone not fond of a judge's call is to take it to the appellate court, and if necessary, the Supreme Court. They already have, but we'll have to wait and see what happens.
This ain't the first time Roberts and Trump have tangoed – they've had a couple dramatic dust-ups before.
In the earlier incident, Trump had bashed a California-based US district judge for not liking one of Trump's first-term asylum policies. Trump sneered, "We don't have Obama judges or Trump judges; we've just got judges who do their job." Roberts stepped up, expressing that, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their best to give equal justice to those appearing before them."
In spats about laws and stuff, Roberts often sided with Trump's agenda. But he's shown skepticism, too. In 2019, he cast the decisive vote against Trump's lawyers' reasoning for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire.
Roberts has got a lot more tests coming up in this second chapter of Trump. And as Trump's political power has grown, so has the focus on any ties between the two.
After Trump delivered a speech to Congress in early March, Trump shook hands with the justices as he left the chamber. When he reached Roberts, Trump patted him on the arm and said, "Thanks again for swearing me in. I won't forget it." After this moment lit up social media, Trump took to Twitter, declaring, "I thanked him for swearing me in on Inauguration Day, and he did a damn good job." Whatever Roberts thought, he walked away without a word.
Long story short, folks, we're still grappling with the dance between Roberts and Trump. And as things heat up, it's gonna be more important than ever to remember the importance of judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
Roberts' stance on impeachment serves as a reminder that judicial decisions should not be subject to impeachment proceedings, but instead should be addressed through the normal appellate process. His defense of judicial independence could potentially be an enabler for migrants facing deportation, as it may encourage judges to be more vocal in challenging Trump's executive orders that they believe are unconstitutional. The future will reveal how Roberts will navigate the testing of his decisions and the ongoing political power struggle between him and President Trump.
