Summary of "Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?"
The Opinions by The New York Times Opinion, released on July 15, 2025, delves into the complex relationship between the federal judiciary and President Donald Trump's administration. Hosted by David Leonhardt, the episode features an in-depth conversation with Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and current Stanford University law professor. Together, they explore whether the courts are serving as a robust check on Trump's actions or inadvertently facilitating his consolidation of power.
1. Lower Courts' Responses to the Trump Administration
David Leonhardt initiates the discussion by highlighting the unprecedented rate at which both Democratic and Republican-appointed judges have ruled against President Trump. Citing an analysis, Leonhardt notes that "Democratic appointed judges have ruled against Trump 80% of the time and Republican appointed judges have ruled against him 72% of the time" ([00:17]). This high frequency of unfavorable rulings, especially concerning Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, signifies a historical anomaly in the judiciary's response to a sitting president.
Notable Quote:
"Even Trump supporters will be happy to tell you that he's trying things that are new, that have never been done before, that push the envelope."
— Michael McConnell ([02:21])
McConnell acknowledges that while administrations generally face increasing legal challenges over time, Trump's unconventional strategies have amplified his legal setbacks. He emphasizes that many of these losses are not pivotal policy defeats but rather retributive actions against lawyers and firms opposing him.
2. Impact of Judicial Rulings on Administration Policies
Leonhardt probes whether these court losses have tangibly altered the Trump administration's policy trajectory. McConnell affirms their significance, particularly in the realm of immigration. He references a crucial decision mandating the administration to afford due process to undocumented immigrants, underscoring a rare instance where the courts imposed fairness into the system ([02:57]).
Notable Quote:
"The idea that they were required to give due process seems to have come as a shock to the administration."
— Michael McConnell ([03:54])
This decision exemplifies the judiciary's role in curbing the administration's more aggressive policies, ensuring that executive actions adhere to constitutional mandates.
3. Shifting Dynamics of Checks and Balances
A significant portion of the conversation centers on the evolving landscape of checks and balances in the U.S. government. McConnell observes that "Congress ceases to be much of a check, at least if the same president that controls the White House controls Congress" ([05:01]). This diminishing role of Congress places greater responsibility on the judiciary to maintain oversight, a shift that diverges from the framers' original expectations.
Notable Quote:
"This is not a Trump thing. This was true under President Biden. It was true under President Obama, under President Bush, that Congress has ceased to be an effective check and the courts are more of a check than I think the framers ever would have imagined them to be."
— Michael McConnell ([05:01])
Leonhardt concurs, highlighting the constitutional implications of Congress's reduced efficacy and the resulting increased reliance on the courts to uphold democratic principles.
4. The Supreme Court's Role and Perceptions of Partisanship
The discussion shifts to the Supreme Court's handling of cases involving the Trump administration. Leonhardt raises concerns about the perceived asymmetry, where lower courts frequently side against Trump, but higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, often reverse these decisions ([08:51]).
Notable Quote:
"The courts are being held to that kind of a partisan standard. And it is my hope, and I actually think it's turning out to be true, that the courts are not falling into that, that individual judges, you can say one way or the other, but the system as a whole seems to be sifting through the legal claims, and they're finding a path which is neither Team Trump nor Team Anti Trump."
— Michael McConnell ([06:16])
McConnell defends the Supreme Court's actions, attributing decisions to the court's adherence to legal standards rather than partisan biases. He explains that the Supreme Court selectively hears cases, often those with the highest likelihood of success for the administration, which can create a misleading impression of favoritism.
Notable Quote:
"I think the decision should not have been stayed. The reason I think that is that I think the likelihood of success on the merits is very high."
— Michael McConnell ([09:12])
This nuanced perspective underscores the complexity of judicial decision-making and the importance of evaluating court actions based on legal merit rather than political affiliations.
5. Potential Thresholds for Alarm and Systemic Stability
Leonhardt prompts McConnell to identify scenarios that might elevate his concerns about the judiciary's role in democracy. McConnell outlines two critical conditions: a president's open defiance of a Supreme Court ruling and a systemic decline in judicial accuracy ([14:01]).
Notable Quote:
"If the president openly defied a final decision of the Supreme Court, we would be in very deep, republic endangering territory."
— Michael McConnell ([14:01])
He further contextualizes his concerns by referencing historical abuses of power, such as Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans and unauthorized military engagements, emphasizing that the integrity of the constitutional system relies on collective adherence rather than individual actions.
6. Threats to Judicial Safety and Rise of Political Violence
The conversation culminates with a discussion on the personal risks faced by federal judges in the current climate. McConnell expresses profound concern over the hostile rhetoric directed at judges, including threats and harassment orchestrated by Trump and his allies ([16:38]).
Notable Quote:
"The rise of political violence in general. It is a real threat to the republic. That is not coming from the courts, and it's. It's coming from the climate of opinion in the United States."
— Michael McConnell ([17:08])
He highlights alarming incidents, such as an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh and intimidation tactics targeting judges' families, underscoring the broader implications for the rule of law and the safety of judicial figures.
7. Conclusion: Maintaining Judicial Independence and Systemic Integrity
Leonhardt and McConnell conclude by reaffirming the importance of an independent judiciary as a cornerstone of American democracy. While acknowledging the unprecedented challenges posed by President Trump's administration, McConnell remains cautiously optimistic about the courts' ability to uphold constitutional principles without succumbing to partisan pressures.
Notable Quote:
"It's been a pleasure."
— Michael McConnell ([18:19])
The episode serves as a critical examination of the judiciary's role in contemporary politics, emphasizing the delicate balance between legal oversight and executive authority.
Key Takeaways:
- Federal courts, both Democratic and Republican-appointed, have frequently ruled against Trump's administration, marking a significant departure from historical precedents.
- While many legal setbacks are retributive rather than policy-defining, crucial rulings in areas like immigration underscore the judiciary's role in enforcing constitutional fairness.
- The diminishing role of Congress as a check on executive power elevates the judiciary's responsibility, challenging the framers' original design of checks and balances.
- The Supreme Court's selective case acceptance and reliance on legal merit rather than partisan considerations play a pivotal role in shaping the administration's policy outcomes.
- Personal safety concerns for federal judges and the rise of political violence pose severe threats to the integrity of the judicial system and, by extension, American democracy.
This comprehensive discussion provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the judiciary's intricate dance with presidential power, highlighting both its strengths and the vulnerabilities that could jeopardize democratic norms.