Listen to the article
Trump Lashes Out at Supreme Court, His Own Appointees After Tariff Ruling
President Donald Trump launched an extraordinary personal attack on Supreme Court justices Friday, including two of his own appointees, after the court struck down his signature global tariffs policy in a 6-3 decision.
The ruling represented a significant defeat for Trump’s economic agenda, with the court finding that his use of a national security emergency powers law to impose widespread tariffs exceeded presidential authority. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, sparked an unusually direct and personal rebuke from the president.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country,” Trump declared from the White House briefing room hours after the decision was announced.
Trump reserved particular ire for Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump appointees who joined the majority opinion. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, suggesting he expected loyalty from the justices he nominated to the bench.
Vice President JD Vance, whose wife previously clerked for Roberts, echoed Trump’s criticism on social media, calling the decision “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple.”
The case represented a significant test of Trump’s expansive view of presidential power. Opposition to the tariffs crossed traditional political lines, with challenges coming from the libertarian-leaning Liberty Justice Center and support from business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, which worried about economic impacts from broad trade restrictions.
Trump’s relationship with the Supreme Court has been complex throughout his presidency. Earlier this year, he won a major victory when the court ruled on presidential immunity, effectively halting his prosecution related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The administration has also prevailed in multiple emergency appeals allowing implementation of controversial immigration policies.
Presidential criticism of Supreme Court rulings has historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson criticized Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated by rulings blocking New Deal legislation, unsuccessfully attempted to expand the court. More recently, Barack Obama criticized the Citizens United decision during a State of the Union address with justices present.
However, Trump’s personalized attacks on individual justices represent a significant departure from traditional presidential restraint, according to Ed Whelan, a former law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
“It’s entirely fine for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling that goes against him. But it’s demagogic for President Trump to contend that the justices who voted against him did so because of lack of courage,” Whelan noted.
Presidents have occasionally expressed disappointment with justices they appointed. Dwight Eisenhower reportedly told friends that appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren had been his “biggest mistake,” while Theodore Roosevelt privately criticized Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for lacking “backbone” in a dissenting vote. The difference is that these criticisms were delivered privately, not in televised remarks from the White House.
Trump’s relationship with Roberts has been particularly strained, with the Chief Justice twice publicly rebuking the president for attacks on federal judges. While Trump didn’t mention Roberts by name Friday, he appeared to target him when suggesting the justices “want to be politically correct” and are “catering to a group of people in D.C.”
The timing of the decision adds potential drama to Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address on Tuesday, where Supreme Court justices traditionally attend in their black robes. Unlike Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who once nodded off during a presidential address (blaming “fine California wine”), observers expect all justices to be fully alert for what could be an uncomfortable evening.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
While I sympathize with Trump’s desire to protect American industries, the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold the law and constitution. Their ruling, even if unpopular, reflects the checks and balances of the US government. It will be interesting to see how this impacts future trade policy.
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Trump’s tariffs is a notable check on presidential power. As an investor in mining and commodities, I’m curious to see how this ruling affects those sectors moving forward. Regardless of one’s political leanings, the independence of the judiciary is crucial.
Interesting to see the Supreme Court rule against Trump’s tariffs. While he may be frustrated, the judiciary is meant to provide a check on executive power. It’s important the courts maintain independence and impartiality, even with political appointees.
As someone invested in the mining and energy sectors, I’m closely following the fallout from this Supreme Court tariff ruling. While it may be a setback for Trump’s agenda, the independence of the judiciary is vital. I’ll be interested to see how this impacts commodity prices and industry dynamics going forward.
The tariff ruling seems like a significant legal setback for Trump’s economic agenda. As a former president, his criticism of the justices’ decision and his own appointees is quite unusual. Though understandable, I’m not sure it’s productive to question their integrity.
Trump’s harsh rhetoric towards the Supreme Court justices, even his own appointees, is quite remarkable. While he’s entitled to disagree with the ruling, accusing them of lacking ‘courage’ and bringing shame on their families seems excessive. The courts must remain impartial, even in politically charged cases.