Powers and Limits: Chief Justice Roberts, President Trump, and Party Loyalty
Creators: name: Prendergast, Scarlett
Publisher: name: American University
Year: 2025

description: For the coequal executive and legislative branches, a hostile political climate creates frequent conflict that often divides leaders even of the same party. President Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts, both Republicans, have experienced a frequent push-and-pull of agreements that expand presidential power and conservative political goals and disagreements that constrain the role of the executive in government. Roberts has influenced decisions on the Court that have greatly benefitted Trump and his political agenda, yet he has also criticized the President’s decisions in ways that were met with disdain from the Chief Executive. Most recently, Roberts released a public statement on March 18, 2025, in which he rebuked the President’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Boasberg. Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to turn around aircraft deporting Venezuelan migrants, to which the administration responded by keeping the planes in flight and calling Boasberg a “crooked” judge who “should be impeached.” Roberts then issued a statement, saying that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose” [1]. This statement upholds the integrity of the legal process even in times of decisive executive action. This places Roberts in an interesting position between party loyalty and institutional loyalty. For the Chief Justice, a conservative who has often sided with the President on past issues, this criticism could threaten his relationship with Trump. However, Roberts is also deeply concerned about the credibility and legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution, and enabling the President to disregard a judicial order that he disagrees with could threaten this. In fact, if President Trump is able to defy statutes, judicial orders, and the Constitution, this raises questions about the very role of the Supreme Court [2]. While both Trump and Roberts are members of the same party who often share ideological goals, they view the institutions of government quite differently, and their differing commitments to the legitimacy of political systems could signal shifts in Constitutional authority.<br>Historically, the Supreme Court has played an essential role in reigning in presidential power and preventing executive overreach. In Youngstown Sheet &amp; Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), President Truman’s power was severely limited by the Court. To avert a nationwide steel strike during the Korean War, Truman issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize the steel mills. He justified this for national defense purposes under the broad guise of the executive power vested in him by the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that the President does not have the power to seize property without statutory or constitutional authority [3]. This decision, one of the most prominent regarding executive power, established that there are limits to the power of the President, even during wartime. Though Truman was surprised by this ruling, he followed it, restoring the steel mills to their owners and relinquishing his claim of power in this field. Even members of Truman’s own Democratic Party voted to limit presidential power in this case, including Justice Black who authored the majority opinion.<br>Similarly, in United States v. Nixon (1974), President Nixon’s executive authority was reigned in by the Court. President Nixon claimed executive privilege during the Watergate scandal, asserting the need for confidentiality and secrecy in some executive actions. However, the Supreme Court said that executive privilege was not an unqualified power, and that while it can exist to protect military or diplomatic secrets, a President cannot claim executive privilege in any circumstance [4]. This was a unanimous 8-0 decision, including all members of the Court except for Justice Rehnquist who recused himself, which upholds the Supreme Court’s commitment to the legitimacy of government institutions. By deciding unanimously, the Court removed partisan loyalties from the decision-making process, instead focusing on precedent and Constitutional authority. Despite Nixon’s continuous efforts to retain power in the wake of controversy, he resigned from office just weeks after this decision, reluctantly recognizing the power of the Court. U.S. v. Nixon shaped the way presidential power was viewed in the judicial system, upholding the Youngstown decision’s assertion that the executive cannot claim unlimited authority. <br>The Trump v. United States (2024) decision significantly changed this view of presidential power in a deeply partisan 6-3 decision. This case granted former President Trump, before his second term in office began, absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all of his official acts. This decision rests on the separation of powers, but the opinion fell on strictly partisan lines [5]. The six conservative justices on the Court voted in favor of this absolute immunity, while the three liberals voted against it. This becomes even more significant when recognizing that three of the six conservative justices – Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett – were appointed by Trump himself during his first term. These three justices helped create the 6-3 conservative majority that Trump has relied on for many landmark rulings that expanded conservative goals in the political sphere, including overturning the constitutional rights to abortion and affirmative action, among others [6]. This suggests a new era of party loyalty that did not exist for President Truman or President Nixon, enabling President Trump to expand executive power with the strict support of members of his own party and the intense disapproval of the liberal Justices. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion in Trump v. United States, which Trump publicly thanked him for [7]. <br>This complicates the relationship between Trump and Roberts, particularly regarding where the Chief Justice will choose to draw the line between partisanship and institutionalism. While Roberts has supported an expansion of the President’s power previously, his recent statement criticizing Trump’s call to impeach Judge Boasberg shows a deep commitment to the role of the Court that would be lost if executives can pick and choose which orders and decisions to follow. Even though Truman and Nixon were faced with decisions they disagreed with, they followed the orders of the Court nonetheless. Moving forward, Chief Justice Roberts may continue to be more critical of President Trump if he attempts to disregard the orders of the judiciary, showing his commitment to the Court’s legitimacy despite his party loyalty. Even following the immunity decision, it is clear that Roberts will still criticize the President’s actions when they threaten the role of the judiciary.<br><br><b>Sources:</b>Josh Gerstein, Kyle Cheney, and Meredith Lee Hill, “John Roberts, in rare statement, hits back after Trump calls for impeaching judges,” Politico (March 18, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeach-federal-judges-00235742. Andrew Chung, “Donald Trump and John Roberts: A president, a chief justice and a judiciary under pressure, Reuters (March 24, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-john-roberts-two-sides-us-judiciary-under-pressure-2025-03-22/. Youngstown Sheet &amp; Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).  United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). Supra 2. Id.