Supreme Court Justice Acknowledges Limits on Power to Enforce Rulings Against a President
In a recent interview, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett discussed the sometimes delicate balance of power within the U.S. government. She acknowledged that the Supreme Court, while a vital institution, ultimately "lacks the power of the purse" and "the power of the sword" to directly enforce its rulings if the executive branch, particularly the President, chooses to disregard them.
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
Barrett, who was nominated to the court by former President Donald Trump in 2020, shared her insights during an interview on a New York Times podcast. When asked what the Supreme Court would do if a President refused to abide by its decisions, she emphasized the court's reliance on constitutional interpretation, precedents, and structural considerations.
She highlighted that the court operates primarily through its reasoned judgments and the persuasive power of its legal arguments. But what happens when those arguments aren’t enough?
Originalism and the "Unitary Executive Theory"
Throughout the conversation, Justice Barrett touched upon her legal philosophy of "originalism," which centers on interpreting the Constitution based on the original understanding of its words at the time of ratification. This approach aims to provide a consistent and historically grounded framework for legal decision-making.
Amy Coney Barrett was appointed in 2020. / Pool / Getty Images
Douthat also inquired about the originalist perspective on executive power, leading Barrett to reference the "unitary executive theory." This theory posits that the President possesses significant authority over the executive branch, including the ability to remove officials without external constraints. However, this view has faced challenges, with some originalist scholars cautioning that it could lead to an overconcentration of power in the hands of the President. This debate is currently playing out in cases before the court.
Supreme Court's Role Amidst Political Division
The discussion also touched upon the perceived partisan divisions within the Supreme Court. While the current court has often sided with President Trump, sometimes along partisan lines, Barrett has stated that she is "nobody's justice." She has also, on occasion, sided with the court's liberal wing.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments involving President Trump in the coming months, these discussions about the court's power and its role in checking the executive branch remain particularly relevant. How will the Supreme Court navigate these complex legal and political waters?
Activists protested outside as the Supreme Court heard arguments over a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. / Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund
It's a question that continues to spark debate and concern among legal scholars and citizens alike.
```