Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to a crowd and cameras outside.

The Time Will Come to Tear Down the Monuments Trump Has Built for Himself

​U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

RFK Jr. Received Compassion When He Was Arrested for Heroin, but My Patients Do Not

The Tone of Our Country Has Changed — And Americans Can See and Feel It Everywhere

The Tone of Our Country Has Changed — And Americans Can See and Feel It Everywhere

Election Experts Urge Caution After President’s Primetime Claims

Election Experts Urge Caution After President’s Primetime Claims

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and US Senator Bernie Sanders standing at a podium together with a crowd of supporters behind them.

Just What Is a Socialist?

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

News

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 and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, 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 operations and change management, coupled with her M.S. in data analytics and research methods, equips her with a powerful skill set. Kristina 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 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

Woman voting on election day
Electoral Reforms

Which Proportional Voting System Best Fits America’s Constraints?

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.
Economy

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
Health

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

Anti-gerrymandering sign
Governance & Legislation

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

Read More

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?
Credit State Court Report

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026