In recent weeks, the Trump administration has faced significant judicial resistance to its executive actions, leading to a contentious debate over the separation of powers in the United States. Several federal judges have blocked or restricted Trump’s policies, including those that redefine birthright citizenship and attempt to freeze federal spending. The interventions on behalf of the Judiciary have sparked strong reactions from the administration, specifically Vice President JD Vance. 

On February 9th, 2025, Vice President Vance took to X asserting that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” encouraging the idea that the judicial branch should not have the authority to overrule presidential decisions. The statement received widespread backlash and criticism from legal experts and political figures arguing that this undermined the constitutional systems of checks and balances. 

Legally, the U.S. Constitution establishes three equal co-branches that are designed to check and balance the power of the others — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. For example, Congress, which is the Legislative branch, passes laws, the President, which is the Executive branch, enforces them, and courts, which is the Judicial branch, interpret them. The concept of judicial review, which was established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803, gives the courts the authority to invalidate executive or legislative actions that violate the Constitution. This landmark act asserted that the Supreme Court had the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws and solidified the role of the court as a check on the power of the other branches of government, ensuring that laws are consistent with the Constitution.

Without this judicial oversight, presidents could enact policies unchecked, undermining democracy. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This concept has been applied throughout U.S. history to this day, where several federal judges have blocked Trump’s attempts to push through some of his policies.

The first of these policies include a birthright citizenship executive order, where Trump’s administration attempted to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which ensures that all persons born or naturalised in the United States are citizens, to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants. In response to this, federal judges issued injunctions, citing and reconfirming the clear constitutional guarantee of citizenship to all born in the U.S.

The Trump administration also attempted to halt certain federal allocations and freeze federal spending, citing “executive efficiency” as their reason for doing so. Judges ruled that the executive cannot unilaterally withhold funds already approved by Congress as it violates the Appropriations Clause, which mandates that no money can be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation made by law, and requires regular statements of public money receipts and expenditures.

Vance, in making such a statement, sparked outrage and triggered alarm across the political and legal spectrum. In response to his statement on X, Daniel Goldman, a Democratic representative from New York, replied, “It’s called the ‘rule of law’. Our constitution created three co-equal branches of government to provide checks and balances on each other.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Univeristy, also emphasized the gravity of undermining judicial authority, stating on X, “If we live in a country where judges' orders can be ignored by an Administration bent on amassing unchecked power, we no longer live in a democracy.” The President was asked about Vance’s statement and his setbacks with the court at the press conference at the Oval Office on February 12th, “When a President can’t look for fraud and waste and abuse, we don’t have a country anymore,” Trump told the press. “So we’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling. But we have a long way to go.” 

“No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of decision,” the president parroted. “It’s a disgrace.”

While tensions between the branches are not new and have been seen through history, this case is shaping up to be more extreme. In the past, there have been a few such cases — for example, Andrew Jackson, the 7th U.S. President, who ignored a Supreme Court ruling during the Indian Removal era. Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President, had also proposed expanding the Supreme Court after it struck down New Deal policies, which critics saw as court-packing. In addition, Richard Nixon has also attempted to defy a court order to hand over tapes from the Watergate scandal during his tenure, but ultimately complied, which led to his resignation. However, this case happening right now differs from the above cases in the past, simply because Trump is frequently refusing to comply and questioning judicial legitimacy outright, even after losing court battles.

The Trump administration’s confrontational pushback extends beyond rhetoric. It continues to assert its theory of presidential powers, which it believes grants him unitary executive branch control. This theory, which the administration is using as legal justification, argues that all the executive power belongs to the president, including control over departments and personnel. It originated with conservative legal scholars and has been cited by former officials such as John Yoo, an author of Bush-era torture memos. However, it has been criticised as a misinterpretation that allows presidents to bypass accountability and independent oversight. Courts have also consistently ruled that independent agencies like the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) must remain shielded from political interference.

President Trump has sought Supreme Court approval to dismiss Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of the Special Counsel, an independent federal agency. Dellinger was fired without a specified cause, the action has been challenged as unlawful and led to a temporary reinstatement by a federal judge. The Trump administration claims that judicial orders blocking executive actions enact an impermissible check on presidential power. 

Legal experts warn that the continuous defiance of court orders could trigger a constitutional crisis. This would arise when branches of government are in direct, unresolved conflict — particularly when one refuses to obey another’s legal authority. Such a crisis could be triggered when multiple judicial orders are defied, especially with  Supreme Court review pending. These risks include undermining the rule of law, delegitimising federal courts, and eroding trust in the legal system and democratic institutions. In the past, there have been close calls, but those were all de-escalated through institutional strength.

If the Supreme Court decides to side with Trump on this issue, future presidents would be given unprecedented power to fire watchdogs without reason, directly intervene in independent investigations, and more importantly, completely override court rulings through executive action. This could also set a dangerous precedent where Congressional spending power is weakened, giving presidents control over the federal purse. This would raise many questions for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential race about whether these expanded powers will be reversed or cemented.

The Judiciary serves as a critical check on executive authority, and any attempt to ignore judicial rulings could diminish the nation’s legal framework. The Brennan Centre for Justice notes that more than ten federal courts have temporarily halted or rejected actions by the Trump administration.