‘We lack the power’: Justice Barrett basically admits SCOTUS can do nothing if Trump violates rulings
Left: Donald Trump speaks at the annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, DC, in June 2024 (Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP). Right: Justice Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020 in Washington, D.C., (Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images).
Posted For: Hauviette
In a recent interview with The New York Times, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged that the Supreme Court ultimately lacks the means to enforce its rulings if a presidential administration were to openly defy orders that conflict with its political agenda.
“[T]he court lacks the power of the purse,” Barrett told columnist Ross Douthat on his podcast. “We lack the power of the sword. And so, we interpret the Constitution, we draw on precedents, we have these questions of structure, and we make the most with the tools that we have.”
Her remarks followed a broader discussion about whether and to what extent the justices consider the surrounding legal and political climate when shaping their decisions. Douthat observed that it is “very easy to imagine” President Trump—or a future president—responding to an adverse ruling by saying, “Interesting ruling, Justice Barrett. Good luck enforcing it.”
Barrett replied that, just as the Court considers long-term institutional dynamics between present and future presidents and between the executive and legislative branches, those same structural concerns inevitably influence its separation-of-powers jurisprudence.
President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court during his first term, shortly after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett was the third of Trump’s nominees confirmed to the Court. In the interview, she reiterated that she, like Scalia, embraces “originalism,” which she defined as the view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the meaning its words held at the time of ratification—“and where that meaning can be discerned, it is decisive.”
Among the strands of originalist thought associated with Scalia and Barrett is the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the president must exercise control over the executive branch. As Barrett explained, this structural approach implies strong presidential authority over executive agencies.
She noted that originalist scholars continue to debate whether the unitary-executive theory rests on firm historical foundations. The question traces back to disputes during the Great Depression and the New Deal, when policymakers argued over how much power Congress had to create administrative agencies insulated from presidential control. Some maintained that all executive power must remain fully under the president, while others supported the New Deal–era expansion of independent agencies.
Barrett and the Court’s conservative majority appear poised to advance aspects of this theory in the current term. The justices are expected to revisit longstanding precedents concerning the president’s authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies without cause, as well as related questions about executive control over congressionally created programs and spending directives.
About Post Author
