After calling the Supreme Court of the United States “fools” and “lapdogs,” Donald Trump has promised to subvert America’s top legal experts and impose more widely unpopular tariffs on the American public.
Trump’s determination to find legal workarounds for the restrictions set by the court case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump exposes his desire to expand his control over the government. While he has not said he will directly defy the decision, his insistence on trying unblocked methods of imposing tariffs ends up delaying any real resolution to the issue the ruling may have provided. Trump seems to be indicating a desire to employ a battering ram of methods, overwhelming the busy court and slipping new executive powers past the judicial branch.
It is imperative that both the Supreme Court and the American public refuse to tire and continue to address each legal challenge. Although contradicting government branches may seem onerous, they protect one of America’s key democratic principles: the separation of powers.
The separation of powers was first outlined in Federalist Paper 51, when Alexander Hamilton argued that any isolated government body was susceptible to corruption. Without separate powers, the executive branch could abuse its control of the military, the legislative branch could manipulatively control finances and the judicial branch could interpret policies without being elected. In order to make sure no one group of politicians becomes dictatorial, each branch must be given contradictory powers and responsibilities. By making sure no single branch could run the country alone, the Constitution ensures everyone is accountable to someone else.
One of the clearest ways that the Constitution ensures the separation of powers is by giving Congress the power of taxation. While the executive branch can physically enforce its will through the military, Congress can impose its will through financial threats. Neither side can intimidate the other, balancing the influence of both the president and congressional representatives over American politics. If the president is allowed to set tariffs or make too many financial decisions, the executive branch gains an edge over the legislative branch and upsets that balance.
The Trump administration is currently involved in a number of lawsuits alleging that the president is stepping beyond the constitutional limits of presidential authority. For example, since the 1800s the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is currently headed to the Supreme Court. War has also become a centerpiece of the debate about presidential power, as the Trump administration has launched attacks on Iran and a military operation in Venezuela without Congress declaring war in the manner outlined by the Constitution.
While many of Trump’s actions are still being litigated — and therefore cannot yet be called definitively unconstitutional — he seems to be taking every opportunity to maximize executive power. This singular aim is concerning; as power becomes centralized in the hands of a few political actors, the door to dictatorship cracks open.
The Supreme Court may be America’s strongest line of defense against this consolidation of power. In America, the court primarily functions as a watchdog for the other two branches and for state governments, ensuring they do not threaten the separation of powers. The Supreme Court can stop presidents from taking actions the Constitution allots to Congress, and it may stop Congress from overexerting power over the states. The court ultimately holds the power of determining what other politicians can and cannot do — a power that causes significant frustration for whichever group is told no.
Recently, such frustration has made it difficult for people on either side of the political aisle to appreciate the Supreme Court. In fact, in September 2025, the court had a historically low approval rating. Whether it’s the current tariff decision or the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, almost all of the court’s rulings today lead to ideology-based outrage. While there may be legitimate problems with the structure of the Supreme Court, the threats it has faced in recent years are deeply troubling.
Trump, in his personal frustration with the Supreme Court, has claimed that it is abusing its power and targeting him. This is undeniably false. If anything, the court is more biased in his favor; Trump personally selected three of the current Justices, and his party selected six in total. When the court overturns Trump’s executive orders, it is simply exercising its best unbiased judgement about the Constitution. Thus, when Trump launches tirades against the court, he is not taking a stand against a corrupt governing body; he is demanding the right to become a corrupt governor himself.
While presidents have tried to ignore the separation of powers in the past, the attempts have always ended poorly. Andrew Jackson chose to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia and refused to recognize the Cherokee people’s political rights. His illegal exercise of power helped create the political climate necessary for the Trail of Tears and the 4000 Cherokee deaths it caused.
In another famous controversy, when Brown v. Board of Education called for the desegregation of schools, southern state governments called for Massive Resistance and directly defied the Supreme Court for decades. In each of these cases, the judicial branch was called biased or unfair because of its refusal to accept oppressive, nondemocratic policies. Repeatedly, America was shown the cost of neglecting the separation of powers.
On the other hand, when properly enforced, the separation of powers has repeatedly protected democracy in America and around the world. In 2024, South Korean President Yoon’s attempt to take over the country with martial law was prevented by multipartisan lawmakers and the Constitutional Court. Democracy was preserved by limits on the executive leader. Similarly, when Watergate occurred in the 1970s, Richard Nixon was held accountable by both Senate investigations and a Supreme Court case. Beyond theory, the separation of powers has been shown to effectively prevent an executive leader from exerting undue power.
Disagreements between government bodies are undoubtedly frustrating. It can seem ridiculous for one government to repeatedly counteract itself. However, if Americans want to preserve the equality and freedom the country was founded on, they must be willing to condemn strong-arm governance and embrace the slow, painful processes necessary to democracy.
Ruby Goodwin is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2026 quarter. She can be reached at regoodwi@uci.edu.
Edited by Kailee Kim