Media Campaigns and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Image
The ongoing media narrative aims to challenge and question the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting the need for reform. Recently, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman commented on the Michigan U.S. Senate race, expressing concern about the potential consequences if Donald Trump controls the House, Senate, and implicitly, the Supreme Court. Friedman describes his voting options as less than ideal, highlighting a Democratic candidate who associates with controversial figures and criticizes American football as fostering ‘toxic masculinity.’
Friedman’s use of the term “tacitly” raises questions about its implication. Merriam-Webster defines ‘tacitly’ as meaning ‘without speaking’ or ‘by unexpressed agreement.’ However, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled against key Trump administration proposals. Despite this, many commentators insist that the court operates under Trump’s influence.
Charles P. Pierce from Esquire argues that the Supreme Court serves ‘the money power,’ supporting Trump’s interests. The Guardian posed the question, ‘Does Trump basically own the US Supreme Court now?’ suggesting the court functions politically rather than legally. Nation correspondent Elie Mystal claims the Roberts Court acts as a ‘rubber stamp’ for Trump. Jackie Calmes from the Los Angeles Times also suggested that the court often sides with Trump, citing Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s statement that Trump prevailed in numerous cases in his second term.
However, this perception doesn’t align with the complete picture. Recent court decisions show that Trump faced more disappointments than victories at the Supreme Court. In executive authority cases since 2024, Trump succeeded in three decisions but failed in two. In emergency-docket rulings, he achieved two victories but lost in two instances.
Interestingly, no liberal justices joined the conservative majority in Trump’s court victories. Conversely, conservative justices aligned with liberals in decisions where Trump lost. This continuity reflects the historical pattern of Republican-appointed justices sometimes crossing the aisle, as seen with justices like Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, and John Paul Stevens.
The ‘shadow docket’ or emergency docket, where the court addresses urgent petitions, also reveals a more nuanced picture. Out of 39 emergency applications in Trump’s second term, 35 were filed by his administration. While these generally favored Trump, only about half directly addressed executive power. Notably, these rulings emphasized the limitations on lower courts rather than expanding executive authority.
Decisions like Trump v. Boyle and Trump v. Wilcox clarified the authority over presidential personnel matters, while others reiterated that temporary protected status designations and immigration policies fall outside of lower courts’ purview. Most decisions aligned with constitutional principles and existing laws.
Overall, describing the Supreme Court as simply supporting Trump does not capture the complexity. Although the court has made decisions that check lower-court activism, it has also opposed Trump’s key initiatives such as tariffs and foreign aid cuts. For Friedman and Mystal, who view politics as a win-all-or-lose proposition, the Supreme Court appears compromised. Yet their focus on decision volume overshadows significant judicial setbacks faced by the White House.