The Supreme Court is conservative, but it's not Trump's court

PUBLISHED: September 1, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

The most persistent accusation against the Supreme Court is that its conservative majority serves as a rubber stamp for President Donald Trump. Every ruling that favors the administration is presented as proof that the justices are loyal to the man who appointed three of them rather than to the Constitution.

But that narrative does not survive a serious reading of the court’s decisions.

The latest example is the White House ballroom. By a 5-4 vote, the court allowed construction to continue while the legal challenge proceeds. That is undeniably a victory for Trump, but it is not a final ruling that the project is lawful. The majority concluded that the preservation organization challenging the construction likely lacked the legal standing necessary to obtain an injunction.

That distinction matters. Courts cannot decide every political controversy simply because citizens or organizations strongly object to what the government is doing. Under Article III, plaintiffs must demonstrate a concrete injury that the judiciary has the power to remedy.

The division within the court is equally revealing. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent, expressing deep concern about the absence of congressional approval. If this were merely Trump’s court, its chief justice would not have broken with the administration on one of the president’s most visible projects.

The ballroom dispute is only one case. The broader record is far more convincing.

In Trump v. Barbara, the court rejected the president’s attempt to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present. Roberts wrote the majority opinion holding that these children remain citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. That was not a minor procedural setback. It was a direct rejection of one of Trump’s signature immigration policies.

In Trump v. Cook, the court refused to let the president immediately remove Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook. The majority recognized that Federal Reserve governors do not serve merely at the pleasure of the president and may be removed only for cause. Justices appointed by Republican presidents preserved the independence of an institution Trump wanted to bring more directly under presidential control.

The court also rejected the administration’s sweeping use of emergency powers to impose major tariffs. In Learning Resources v. Trump, the justices concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant the president unlimited authority to remake American trade policy through tariffs. The decision reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle: Congress cannot surrender its legislative power through vague language, and a president cannot discover limitless authority inside a statute written for genuine emergencies.

Then there is Trump v. Illinois. The administration asked the court to permit the federal deployment of National Guard forces over the objections of state officials. The court denied the request, leaving in place an order blocking the deployment. Whatever one thinks of the policy, the ruling demonstrated that the conservative majority would not automatically accept the president’s invocation of military authority.

Even in immigration cases where Trump has prevailed, the court has insisted upon due process. It has recognized the government’s authority to enforce immigration law while making clear that individuals facing removal must receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legal basis for that removal. That is neither open-borders judicial activism nor blind presidential obedience. It is the judiciary attempting to preserve both national sovereignty and constitutional procedure.

The same independence appears outside disputes carrying Trump’s name. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld Mississippi’s practice of counting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but received shortly afterward. That result hardly fits the claim that the conservative justices exist to advance every Republican election argument.

The court is unquestionably conservative. It interprets the Second Amendment broadly, protects religious liberty, limits the authority of administrative agencies and generally favors a strong but not unlimited executive branch. Those principles will naturally produce decisions welcomed by a conservative president.

But ideological agreement is not personal loyalty.

A justice may believe that Trump has broad authority over immigration enforcement while rejecting his position on citizenship. The court may defer to the executive branch on national security while restraining its use of the military at home. It may allow ballroom construction to continue because the plaintiff lacks standing while never deciding that the president had legal authority to begin the project without Congress.

Those distinctions are frustrating to partisans because partisans want a scoreboard. If Trump wins, critics declare the court corrupt. If he loses, supporters accuse the justices of betrayal. Neither reaction respects the judicial role.

The proper question is not whether Trump won a particular case. It is whether the court applied constitutional text, statutory language, precedent and judicially enforceable limits consistently.

The justices should be criticized when their reasoning is unpersuasive. Lifetime appointments do not place them beyond scrutiny. But describing the court as a rubber stamp ignores its most consequential decisions and reduces constitutional law to partisan theater.

This is a conservative court, and Trump has benefited from that reality. But its complete record shows something more important: When the justices believe he has exceeded his authority, they have been willing to tell him no.

That is not presidential obedience. That is judicial independence.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2026 Baltimore Sun