Supreme Court's Apparent Opposition to Trump Masks Systematic Enablement of Executive Power
Source: Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern. "The John Roberts vs. Donald Trump story conceals something sinister.." June 1, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The authors argue that stories about the Supreme Court standing up to Trump are mostly fake. In reality, the Court gives Trump almost everything he wants to expand presidential power, and only says no when Trump threatens the Court's own authority.
Conclusion
The narrative of Supreme Court versus Donald Trump is largely illusory - the Court systematically enables Trump's expansion of executive power while only opposing him when its own judicial supremacy is threatened
Premises
- The Court aligns with Trump on maximalist views of executive power both publicly through merits decisions and secretly through shadow docket cases
- The Court uses a strategic pattern of making small changes first, then larger ones, now accelerated through the shadow docket within single terms
- When the Court does oppose Trump, it's primarily to defend its own institutional prerogatives and maintain its role as ultimate decider
- The Court has rewarded Trump's defiance of lower court orders repeatedly, establishing a dangerous precedent
- By giving Trump so many victories, the Court risks creating an expectation of success that could lead him to defy even Supreme Court decisions
Assumptions
- Trump operates as a predator who interprets judicial restraint as invitation to push further
- The Court's conservative majority shares Trump's vision of expanded executive power
- Institutional self-preservation motivates the Court's decision-making more than constitutional principles
- The appearance of conflict between branches serves both institutions' interests