John Roberts Is
Losing Patience With Trump
Feb. 24, 2026
Ms.
Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme
Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008.
Chief Justice John
Roberts doesn’t waste words.
His majority opinion in last
week’s tariff ruling was, characteristically, a model of succinctness. In a
mere 21 pages (Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, by contrast, clocked
in at 46 pages, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent at 63), he explained why,
as a matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional separation of
powers, President Trump lacked the authority he had claimed, under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose a hodgepodge of tariffs
on countries all over the world.
There was, however, one
exception to the opinion’s conciseness: a meaty paragraph describing the
roller-coaster course of Mr. Trump’s tariff regime. Here, with citations to
seven separate executive orders omitted for the sake of readability, is the
chief justice’s account:
Since imposing each set of tariffs,
the president has issued several increases, reductions and other modifications.
One month after imposing the 10 percent drug trafficking tariffs on Chinese
goods, he increased the rate to 20 percent. One month later, he removed a
statutory exemption for Chinese goods under $800. Less than a week after
imposing the reciprocal tariffs, the president increased the rate on Chinese
goods from 34 percent to 84 percent. The very next day, he increased the rate
further still, to 125 percent. This brought the total effective tariff rate on
most Chinese goods to 145 percent. The president has also shifted sets of goods
into and out of the reciprocal tariff framework ([e.g.,] exempting from
reciprocal tariffs beef, fruits, coffee, tea, spices and some fertilizers). And
he has issued a variety of other adjustments ([e.g.,] extending “the suspension
of heightened reciprocal tariffs” on Chinese imports).
For all the attention
the decision in this case, Learning Resources v. Trump, has received, this
paragraph has gone largely unremarked. I understand why; it’s unnecessary to
the opinion’s argument. If, as a matter of law, the tariffs are invalid, it
doesn’t matter whether they were imposed sensibly or capriciously. The
paragraph is, in a word, gratuitous, something that can rarely be said about a
passage in a Roberts opinion. So what is it doing there?
The answer, I think, is
that the chief justice is sending a message not necessarily or not only to Mr.
Trump but also to the waiting world. Something along the lines of, “People,
this is what we’re dealing with.” The point being not that “some fertilizers”
are now exempt from reciprocal tariffs but that a reckless president is sowing
chaos in America and around the globe.
We don’t need to know Chief Justice
Roberts’s innermost thoughts about Mr. Trump — whatever they were before the
president, in reaction to the tariff decision, described him and his majority as “fools” and “lap
dogs” swayed “by foreign interests”
— to discern his exasperation.
For the past year, the
Trump administration has trolled the Supreme Court, sending up one emergency
application after another to demand temporary relief from adverse lower-court
rulings. The administration frequently got what it wanted: a stay of the ruling
while an appeal proceeded. Powerful dissenting opinions from the three liberal
justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, made sure the
public knew that these orders, while making no law, had the real-world effect
of enabling the president to carry out his agenda, including slashing the
federal work force and gutting lifesaving foreign assistance programs. Chief
Justice Roberts was usually in the majority on these unsigned and generally
unexplained orders; obviously he thought the stays were called for. But he
probably isn’t happy with the drip-drip-drip of public perception — reflected
in polls and
social media chatter — that the court was handing the president a blank check.
Something different
happened in late December when the justices denied the
administration’s request for a stay of a district-court decision barring its
use of the National Guard in Illinois. The order was unsigned, with Justices
Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. The three-page order
essentially made new law by narrowly defining the circumstances under which a
president could federalize a state’s National Guard.
This was a very big
deal. The president promptly acceded to the order, removing the federalized
Guard from Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., as well as Chicago. Yet the court’s
action, coming on the day before Christmas Eve, received far less attention than
the tariff case. In discussions about the court today, few people even seem to
remember it. It is as if the view of the court as the administration’s lackey
was so entrenched that evidence to the contrary was too discordant to be fully
absorbed.
The tariff decision was
the first of the court’s rulings, after full briefing and oral argument, on the
merits of one of the second Trump administration’s cases. A decision on the
administration’s effort to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of
Governors may be next. In that case, the administration claims sufficient cause
to dismiss a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, based on assertions it claims she made in
mortgage agreements. During oral argument, Chief
Justice Roberts seemed to recoil from the overwrought tone of Solicitor General
D. John Sauer’s argument, which began with, “Deceit or gross negligence by a
financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal,” even
though there has been no judicial finding that Ms. Cook engaged in either.
“You began by talking about deceit,”
Chief Justice Roberts said to Mr. Sauer. “Does what you said after that apply
in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the
record?” Mr. Sauer’s answer, “We would say yes,” hung unsatisfactorily in the
air as the argument proceeded for the next two hours.
It’s worth remembering
that Chief Justice Roberts is the head of the entire judicial branch. It is in
that capacity that his vexation with Mr. Trump verges on acute concern. The
president has denounced judges who have ruled against him, including by calling for a Federal District Court judge’s
impeachment. Mr. Trump has helped create an atmosphere in which judges
appropriately fear for their personal safety and that of their families. Many
people expected the chief justice to address this issue directly in his year-end
report in December, but he did not. In two decades as the nation’s top jurist, he
has at times spoken directly in defense of the judiciary, as in his 2024 report. But these occasions have been infrequent,
as if the only messages this notably self-possessed and buttoned-down man cares
to send are those his opinions deliver.
Noted.
