Trump’s Supreme Court grievance grows as new term looms
As the Supreme Court prepares to open a new term Monday, President Donald Trump's profound grievance toward the justices — particularly his own appointees — only seems to be growing.
Trump is lashing out at the court more often on social media, not only bemoaning his most recent losses but linking them together to fuel a sense that the justices are a lost cause.
When the court voted 7-2 last month to block Trump's proposed new limits on mail-in voting, he said he viewed the defeat as just one in a series of Supreme Court affronts.
"Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court," Trump declared on Truth Social . He also invoked his loss in a "horrible" ruling on tariffs and blasted the decision against his plan to end birthright citizenship, calling it "a complete and total disaster for America."
Trump was particularly steamed at his three appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — for the occasions on which he believes they betrayed him.
"These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves," the president wrote.
One longtime court watcher said Trump clearly views the three justices he appointed as owing him the same kind of loyalty he expects from his executive branch appointees.
"The fact that some of the people checking his power are people that he appointed drives him crazy because he thinks that by appointing them, they owe him loyalty and allegiance," said Stephen Wermiel, a Supreme Court historian and law professor at American University.
Trump is so preoccupied with the justices that he now takes gratuitous shots at the high court unprompted by any specific loss.
While conducting a poll on Truth Social last month about renaming artificial intelligence, Trump initially proposed "Supreme Intelligence" as an option, before dropping it. That alternative is "losing badly," Trump wrote , "probably because of its relationship to the Supreme Court."
"It's in his head," Wermiel added. "It's almost obsessive."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The justices' next set of cases include a bid to stymie climate litigation against oil companies, a fight over whether a Catholic Church can exclude children of gay parents from taxpayer-funded daycare and a dispute over the Trump administration's effort to speed deportations of immigrants to countries to which they have no ties.
The justices also announced Thursday they plan to hear another immigration case about the rights of tens of thousands or more immigrants who are in deportation proceedings but have been in the U.S. for years.
Fights over Trump's controversial pet projects, like a potential Kennedy Center renovation and the construction of a triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, are simmering in the lower courts and could make their way to the justices in the next year.
Perhaps even more critical for Trump, depending on the outcome of next month's midterms, are potential showdowns with congressional Democrats who are vowing to conduct aggressive oversight of the administration — subpoenaing witnesses, demanding documents and threatening legal consequences for non-compliance. Those battles have historically been a slog in the courts, but could also wind up before the justices.
"If he manages to lose both houses of Congress, as I suspect he will, there may be lots of conflicts going to the court over the next couple years," said Ed Whelan, who served in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush and as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump seems to be bracing for the worst in those looming fights. He suggested recently he could face payback for his persistent attacks on the justices. "It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come," he wrote on Truth Social last month , without elaborating on the feared consequences.
Trump's track record at the court
What's curious about Trump's deep disappointment with the court is that his overall record is a strong one, particularly on the court's emergency docket.
His administration has won over 70% of those cases since he returned to office. Justice Department attorneys persuaded the justices to green light mass firings at federal agencies , billions of dollars worth of cuts in grants and contracts and a huge surge in deportations . While Trump dwells on his losses on tariffs, birthright citizenship and a GOP redistricting effort in Missouri, the justices have handed Trump wins in almost every case over his attempts to fire federal agency leaders, reined in the power of lower-court judges to block administration policies nationwide and let him proceed with his White House ballroom.
Never mind that Trump also could have been effectively disqualified from the 2024 election, and could have wound up in prison, if not for the Supreme Court.
"I think overall he ought to be very grateful for all the victories he's won in the court. He could easily have lost some others," Whelan said.
Several courtwatchers interviewed for this article said they don't think that Trump's attacks on the justices will have a direct impact on how they vote in future cases. However, some said the over-the-top remarks could undercut Trump's credibility, especially for some of his more outlandish claims — like his assertion that the new arch he wants to build next to the Potomac is needed as a military fortress.
Trump ratchets up attacks
Historians say the frequency, intensity and personal nature of Trump's attacks on the Supreme Court are without parallel in the modern era.
"Presidents have criticized the court. I don't know of anyone who has gone to such great lengths to personally try to demean the court and individual justices and in more strident terms than ever before," Wermiel said.
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both used the court as a punching bag on the campaign trail, but tempered their criticism once they were in the White House. President Barack Obama used his 2010 State of the Union address to criticize the justices' Citizens United decision as six of them sat just feet away.
The most sustained attacks on the high court in the past century came from President Franklin Roosevelt, who was so upset at the justices for blocking New Deal programs that he tried to pack the court. But his rhetoric was mild, even quaint, in comparison to Trump's attacks.
"When [Roosevelt] was running for president in '32, and he was on the campaign trail in Baltimore, he was attacking the Republican Party and said that they controlled all three branches of government. The New York Times wrote a thundering editorial: 'This was just beyond the pale to suggest that the Supreme Court is a partisan institution," said Jeff Shesol, author of "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court" and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton.
When FDR complained that the high court was taking the country back to the "horse and buggy" days, the blowback was so intense that Roosevelt had to moderate his rhetoric. Roosevelt eventually intensified his criticism, but only when the court packing plan faced a critical test.
"It took him a while to warm up to talking about what one of his advisors called the real mischief," Shesol said.
