During recent Supreme Court arguments something unusual happened that should worry every American who believes in the rule of law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the Trump administration’s lawyer a question that should never need to be asked: Will you follow our ruling if we decide against you?
This extraordinary moment came during arguments over President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. When Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Justice Department would “generally” follow court decisions that go against them, he revealed a troubling shift in how this administration views court authority.
For the first time in modern memory, Supreme Court justices seem genuinely worried that the executive branch might simply ignore their rulings.
This concern didn’t come out of nowhere. The Trump administration has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of court decisions that limit its power, from immigration cases to election disputes. While presidents have always been frustrated by judicial limits, they have historically accepted that court orders must be followed. The current administration’s unclear stance toward following court orders represents a major departure from how things have always worked.
The irony is obvious. The court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, handed Trump a huge victory in 2024 with Trump v. United States, giving him some immunity from prosecution for presidential acts. Yet rather than creating executive respect for court authority, this decision may have encouraged the very defiance the justices now face. By creating sweeping presidential immunity, the court may have accidentally signaled that traditional limits on executive power can be ignored.
The justices’ skepticism goes beyond worries about compliance to the administration’s broader legal strategy. During arguments on various emergency cases, the court has expressed frustration with how the administration approaches legal process. When the government tried to deport Venezuelan immigrants under an old wartime law with only one day’s notice, the justices criticized the rushed timeline. The justices also seemed irritated when the administration argued that lower courts issuing nationwide orders blocking Trump’s policies had no authority to provide such broad relief.
This creates a constitutional problem. If federal judges cannot issue nationwide orders to block unconstitutional policies, and if the administration reserves the right to ignore court rulings in individual cases, what exactly limits executive power? The administration seems to be systematically challenging the judiciary’s traditional tools while refusing to promise they’ll follow the results.
The birthright citizenship case shows this dynamic perfectly. Trump’s executive order says that children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary residents will no longer automatically become citizens, directly contradicting over a century of Supreme Court precedent. When federal judges blocked the order as “obviously unconstitutional,” the administration came to the court asking to implement it anyway while appeals continue.
Justice Elena Kagan captured what’s at stake when she told the solicitor general to assume his constitutional interpretation was “dead wrong.” Without broad court relief, she noted, “untold numbers of people” could be wrongly denied citizenship for years while cases slowly move through the courts. The practical result would be a massive constitutional violation, enabled by the administration’s refusal to accept court authority.
Even justices who usually don’t like nationwide court orders seemed troubled by the administration’s position. Justice Neil Gorsuch, typically a critic of broad judicial relief, questioned whether alternatives like class action lawsuits would be practical given the immediate and ongoing harm from the government’s actions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked for specifics about how hospitals would handle newborn citizenship questions if the order takes effect, showing concern about real-world chaos.
The court finds itself in uncharted territory. Traditionally, Supreme Court arguments focus on legal interpretation and constitutional principles. Justices assume that whatever they decide will be faithfully carried out by the executive branch, even when presidents disagree with the outcome. Richard Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes despite claiming executive privilege. Even during the most heated periods of conflict between presidents and courts, compliance was never seriously in doubt.
Now the justices must consider not just what the law requires, but whether their rulings will matter. When Barrett had to extract a promise that the administration would follow court decisions, she was essentially asking whether the rule of law still works in America. The qualified answer she received suggests it may not.
This breakdown in constitutional norms threatens the basic principle that ours is a government of laws, not individuals. The court’s authority ultimately rests on public acceptance and executive compliance, not armed enforcement. When an administration openly questions whether it must follow adverse rulings, it undermines the entire system of checks and balances that protects democratic government.
The justices seem to recognize this threat, which may explain their increasingly pointed questioning of administration lawyers. By forcing public promises to comply, they may be trying to preserve court authority through moral pressure when legal authority proves insufficient. Whether this strategy works will determine far more than the outcome of current cases. The rule of law depends on mutual respect among the different branches of government. When that breaks down, democracy itself becomes fragile.
Americans across the political spectrum should be concerned when any administration treats court orders as optional. Today’s defiance of court authority, however justified it may seem to supporters, creates precedent for future abuse by any president. The court’s questions about compliance aren’t just about Trump — they’re about whether constitutional government can survive in an era when institutional norms no longer hold.