Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court is under mounting scrutiny after a series of rulings that legal experts say have drastically expanded executive authority under President Donald Trump—while weakening constitutional protections and compromising the judiciary’s role as a check on presidential power.
The controversy centers on the Court’s March 2024 decision declaring that states cannot disqualify federal candidates under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a clause designed to bar individuals who engage in insurrection from holding public office. By overturning Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the presidential ballot, the justices avoided ruling on whether Trump’s actions on January 6 met that threshold—deferring enforcement to a bitterly divided Congress. Analysts say this decision effectively neutralized a key safeguard in the Constitution.
Legal observers argue the case reflects a more profound shift: the Court’s 6–3 conservative majority, led by Trump’s appointees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—has repeatedly delivered rulings that reinforce the president’s agenda. Critics point to an increasingly clear pattern of decisions that suggest ideological alignment rather than judicial independence.
Among the most controversial:
- Citizenship Clause (14th Amendment): The Court declined to block Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented or temporary residents. Constitutional scholars say this conflicts with the amendment’s explicit guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil.
- Due Process Clause (5th Amendment): In June 2025, the Court lifted injunctions against expanded deportation policies, allowing transfers—including U.S. citizens—with limited access to legal defense. Experts say this violates due process protections.
- Nationwide Injunctions (Article III): Justice Barrett authored an opinion narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions, thereby limiting the ability of lower courts to halt federal actions. The ruling broke from decades of precedent, raising concern about the erosion of judicial authority.
- Separation of Powers: Legal scholars warn that the Court has begun abdicating its constitutional role as a coequal branch. Rather than challenging Trump’s most sweeping initiatives, it has repeatedly stood aside, inviting executive overreach.
Beyond the legal debates, tensions have escalated inside the judiciary. Following the Colorado case, judges received death threats, doxxing attacks, and violent rhetoric from Trump supporters. The FBI launched investigations into this surge of intimidation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that “a society in which judges are routinely made to fear for their own safety… has substantially departed from the norms of behavior that govern a democratic system.” Former federal prosecutor Berit Berger added that the Supreme Court appears “intimidated” and increasingly reluctant to confront political pressure.
Despite growing backlash, the Court has issued no formal response to either the threats or accusations of bias. Reform proposals—ranging from judicial term limits to stricter ethics rules and structural redesign—are gaining support among lawmakers and constitutional scholars aiming to restore institutional credibility.
Observers warn that silence may be perpetuating the perception of weakness and raising more profound questions about whether the judiciary remains capable of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities amid escalating political pressure.
And beneath that silence, a deeper conclusion has crystallized:
This is not merely timidity—it is failure. The Supreme Court is no longer functioning as a competent or courageous steward of the Constitution.
.
Mentonym Express 