Here’s a rewritten version of the article by John Fritze, maintaining the core information and structure but rephrased for clarity and variety:
By John Fritze, CNN
6-minute read
Published 4:00 AM EST, Mon March 3, 2025
When President Donald Trump meets several Supreme Court justices on the House floor Tuesday evening before delivering his first congressional address of his second term, the scene will likely feature warm smiles and firm handshakes. Yet behind closed doors, there are whispers of unease among the justices. A wave of lawsuits challenging Trump’s recent barrage of executive actions has thrust federal courts—including the Supreme Court—into the spotlight, with two appeals tied to the president’s orders already under review.
“There’s a lot heading our way, and more to come in the months ahead,” Justice Elena Kagan remarked during a late February alumni event at Princeton University. “People are paying close attention to the courts in general, and to my court specifically.”
Trump and his team have flirted with the idea of disregarding federal court rulings, a move that could spark a constitutional showdown. In a recent social media post, Trump echoed Napoleon, declaring, “He who saves his country breaks no laws.” Meanwhile, two of his top Justice Department picks dodged direct answers when senators pressed them on whether the administration would honor all judicial decisions. Combined with lawsuits—including one alleging the administration is already defying court orders—these developments have left a court that prefers to steer clear of politics even more determined to avoid the fray.
“Sometimes I feel more inclined to speak out, sometimes less so,” Kagan said at Princeton, emphasizing her intent to keep her remarks low-key. “You read the news. There’s a lot happening out there. That’s all I’ll say.”
A Reluctant Tradition
Many justices have long avoided presidential addresses to Congress. The late Justice Antonin Scalia once dismissed the State of the Union as a “childish spectacle.” Still, Chief Justice John Roberts typically attends, joined by a handful of colleagues. They exchange greetings with the president en route to the podium, then sit stoically as lawmakers leap to their feet in applause throughout the speech.
This Tuesday, the physical distance between Trump’s teleprompter and the justices’ seats may feel like a chasm—especially if he mentions the string of court losses his administration has faced. Legal experts note that the justices’ silence in the face of threats to ignore rulings is likely deliberate.
“Justices rarely comment publicly on matters that could reach their bench,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school. “Given the current tension, they’re even less likely to speak up now. They don’t want to appear confrontational or prejudge anything.”
In 2018, Roberts issued a rare rebuke of Trump, rejecting the notion of “Obama judges” or “Trump judges” and insisting the judiciary consists of “dedicated professionals striving to deliver equal justice.” But challenging Trump now could prove risky, potentially handing the president and his supporters ammunition to claim the court is biased against their appeals.
The conservative-leaning Supreme Court has delivered Trump significant wins, including last year’s ruling shielding former presidents from criminal prosecution for official acts—a decision critics say derailed special counsel Jack Smith’s case against him. Yet since the election, the court has also ruled against Trump, allowing his sentencing in the New York hush money case, upholding a TikTok ban he opposed, and temporarily preserving the job of an independent watchdog agency head despite his objections.
Subtle Signals
While the justices avoid naming Trump directly, their concerns occasionally surface. In his annual report on New Year’s Eve, Roberts warned against “dangerous suggestions” to defy courts, attributing them to voices “across the political spectrum.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, recently referenced Nixon’s 1974 Watergate tapes case during arguments, questioning what might happen if a president simply refused to comply with a court order.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, has been the most vocal lately—though she, too, avoids specifics. “Court rulings stand,” she said at a mid-February event in Miami. “Whether one person chooses to follow them doesn’t undo the fact that it’s a binding order someone will eventually uphold. That’s the trust I have in our system.”
Cases on the Horizon
If the justices are staying quiet in public, Trump’s actions are forcing their hand on the docket. The court recently sidestepped a Justice Department request to remove Hampton Dellinger, head of a whistleblower-protection agency, keeping him in place for now. Another urgent appeal involves $2 billion in foreign aid Trump has tried to freeze. Nonprofits reliant on the funds argue the administration is openly ignoring a lower court’s order to release the money, while DOJ attorneys insist they respect judicial authority.
In the coming days, the Supreme Court will decide whether to side with the nonprofits or the president, a ruling that could test the fragile balance between the branches of government.
This version preserves the original article’s meaning and intent while varying the phrasing and structure for a fresh take. Let me know if you'd like further adjustments!
Comments
Post a Comment