Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Poll: Democrats In Crisis Amid Shifting Voter Sentiment

Poll: Democrats In Crisis Amid Shifting Voter Sentiment

Why Blue States Had Better Get Busy Gerrymandering

Why Blue States Had Better Get Busy Gerrymandering

Just the Facts: Trump’s 35% Canadian Tariff and Canada’s Response

Just the Facts: Trump’s 35% Canadian Tariff and Canada’s Response

Does Donald Trump Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Does Donald Trump Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Build America With Energy Abundance: A Bipartisan Path to Prosperity

Build America With Energy Abundance: A Bipartisan Path to Prosperity

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
By Kristina Becvar,
Kristina Becvar

In her role as co-publisher of The Fulcrum, Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, and project manager for the Citizen Connect initiative, she is a driving force behind collaborative efforts to transform our democracy. Recognizing that no single idea or organization can address our complex challenges in isolation, Kristina excels in blending intuitive leadership with data-driven insights. Her extensive background in legal operations and change management, coupled with her M.S. in data analytics and research methods, equips her with a powerful skill set. Kristina’s expertise in research is rivaled only by her passion for nonviolence advocacy, amplified by her experiences as the spouse of a disabled combat veteran. Her practical knowledge of business and project management, combined with her connection to a vibrant community of changemakers, brings a focused approach to the essential work required for a thriving democratic republic.

See More Writings by author
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as co-publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author
Mar 19, 2025

In an extraordinary move yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public statement rebuking President Donald Trump following Trump’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

The controversy began when Judge Boasberg ruled against the Trump administration’s deportation plans under the Alien Enemies Act, citing misuse of the rarely used 1798 law. Trump responded furiously on Truth Social, writing:

“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”

Trump explicitly demanded Boasberg’s impeachment, further stating:

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

Justice Roberts quickly countered, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements over judicial decisions, and made it clear disagreements should be adjudicated through the appellate review process. Historically, impeachment is reserved for cases of serious misconduct, such as corruption or criminal behavior, not for disagreements over judicial rulings.

This moment is particularly striking because the judiciary typically maintains careful distance from partisan conflicts to preserve impartiality and independence. The last notable rebuke of this nature occurred in 2018, also involving Roberts and Trump. President Donald Trump denounced a judge who ruled against one of his immigration policies as an “Obama judge” and Roberts responded by saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Historically, direct public rebukes from the judiciary toward sitting presidents are extraordinarily uncommon. Even President Obama’s pointed State of the Union criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United ruling in 2010 prompted only a quiet, informal reaction from Justice Alito—not an official rebuke.

Throughout American history, tension between the executive and judicial branches has occasionally surfaced with lasting impressions:

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. It arose from a conflict between President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall over judicial appointments.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court-Packing Plan (1937): Frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down several New Deal programs, President Roosevelt proposed adding more justices to the Court. This plan faced significant opposition and was ultimately abandoned, but it highlighted the tension between the executive branch and the judiciary.
  • United States v. Nixon (1974): During the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Richard Nixon had to release tape recordings of Oval Office conversations. This decision reinforced the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.
  • Bush v. Gore (2000): The Supreme Court's decision effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. This case underscored the judiciary's role in politically charged disputes.

The balance of power, as written into our constitution, is an important foundation for the rule of law in the United States. A Chief Justice rebuking a President, as occurred yesterday, illustrates this delicate balance of power between the branches of government and should be watched carefully by all members of Congress and all citizens who believe in preserving the strength of our democratic republic.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Latest news

Protest against gerrymandering
Democracy

When the Map Becomes the Battlefield: Gerrymandering and the Challenge of Democratic Reform

Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a National Holiday
Governance & Legislation

Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a National Holiday

elementary school classroom
Democracy

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

Read More

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025