The Judiciary Under Threat: How Trump’s Attacks Could Shape the Future of American Democracy
The Judiciary Under Threat: How Trump’s Attacks Could Shape the Future of American Democracy
The Judiciary Under Siege: How Trump's War on the Courts Could Undermine American Democracy
What happens when the leader of a democracy wages war against its courts?
Throughout history, the judiciary has stood as a neutral force, safeguarding against abuses of power and ensuring that even the most powerful are bound by the law. However, during Donald Trump’s presidency, his fiery rhetoric and repeated attacks on the courts directly challenged this fundamental principle. His criticisms were not just isolated frustrations; they revealed a more profound disdain for judicial checks on executive power. From accusing judges of bias due to their ethnicity to disparaging court rulings that blocked his policies, Trump consistently treated the judiciary as an obstacle to be undermined rather than a necessary check on power.
As Trump positions himself for a potential return to the presidency in 2024, critical questions arise about the judiciary's future. What would happen if his combative stance, which has already caused significant damage, escalates in a second term? Could the very independence of the judiciary — a cornerstone of American democracy — be at even greater risk?
In this article, we will explore how Trump’s past attacks on the judiciary have set a dangerous precedent, how his potential reelection could further erode judicial independence, and why preserving a strong, impartial judiciary is crucial for the survival of democracy itself.
Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary: A Historical Overview
Criticism of Judges
Donald Trump repeatedly targeted individual judges throughout his first term, especially when their rulings went against his administration’s policies. One of the most infamous incidents involved U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University. In a 2016 interview, Trump suggested that Curiel’s Mexican heritage made him unfit to preside over the case, stating, “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” This racially charged accusation implied that a judge’s ethnicity compromised their ability to be impartial, which drew sharp condemnation from both sides of the political aisle. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a Republican, called it “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
Trump’s attacks on judges did not end there. After a Seattle-based federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking his travel ban, Trump took to Twitter, calling the judge a “so-called judge” whose decision “essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country” and was “ridiculous and will be overturned.” His language suggested frustration and a disregard for the judiciary’s authority to check executive power.
Accusations of Political Bias
Trump’s criticisms were not confined to individual judges. He often extended his rhetoric to the judiciary, claiming that courts were filled with politically motivated actors. When courts blocked his administration’s immigration policies, such as his attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, he accused judges of undermining his efforts to protect national security. His comments framed the judiciary as a partisan body working against his administration’s goals.
This rhetoric eroded the perception of the judiciary as an independent branch of government. By continuously suggesting that judges were acting out of political bias, Trump undermined the public’s trust in the courts. Legal scholars have pointed out that Trump’s frequent insinuations of bias weakened confidence in the judiciary. According to a 2018 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, public confidence in the judicial branch declined during Trump’s presidency, with many Americans expressing concerns about the impartiality of the courts.
Real-World Impacts of Judicial Criticism
Trump’s relentless attacks on the judiciary influenced public opinion and had dangerous real-world consequences. Judges who ruled against Trump’s policies began facing increased threats and harassment. In one tragic incident, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s son was killed by a gunman who targeted her after her involvement in high-profile cases. Although the attack was not directly linked to Trump, Salas warned about the growing dangers judges face in a politically charged atmosphere. The increasing security risks judges face highlight how attacks on the judiciary, particularly in a polarized environment, can have fatal consequences. This is not a theoretical risk but a stark reality that demands immediate attention.
The Public Perception of the Judiciary Under Trump
Eroding Trust in the Courts
Trump’s sustained attacks on the judiciary contributed to a growing perception among his supporters that judges were politically biased. This perception was amplified by Trump’s rhetoric, particularly on social media and at public rallies, where he framed court rulings against his policies as politically motivated attempts to sabotage his administration.
As this narrative took hold, many viewed judges as partisan actors in robes rather than neutral arbiters of the law. The impact of this perception is profound: when a significant portion of the population views the judiciary as politically biased, it weakens the foundation of judicial authority. It undermines trust in the rule of law.
For example, in cases related to immigration, such as the travel ban or challenges to DACA, Trump’s supporters often echoed his accusations of bias, framing the courts as obstacles to his agenda rather than as independent bodies upholding the Constitution. This polarization of public opinion around the judiciary can have long-lasting consequences, eroding the public’s belief in the courts as fair and impartial institutions.
Polarization and the Judiciary’s Future
The politicization of the judiciary has had a lasting impact. Trump’s appointments to the federal bench — more than 200 judges, including three Supreme Court justices — have further entrenched the courts in partisan battles. Many of these judges were selected for their conservative legal philosophies, aligning with Trump’s political agenda. As a result, judges appointed during Trump’s administration often face assumptions about their political leanings, regardless of the content of their rulings.
The Supreme Court has become the focus of intense scrutiny following decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and others dealing with voting rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and environmental regulations. The perception that the courts are more ideologically driven has profound implications for how the judiciary will be viewed in the future — not as neutral arbiters but as participants in partisan power struggles.
What Could Happen If Trump Is Reelected in 2024?
Expanding the Attacks on Judges
If Donald Trump returns to the White House, his attacks on the judiciary will likely intensify. We have already seen how he responds to unfavorable rulings: with personal attacks, public criticism, and accusations of bias. A second term could bring even more aggressive confrontations with the courts, especially as Trump faces ongoing legal challenges related to investigations into his conduct, including cases concerning his role in the January 6 insurrection and his handling of classified documents.
In such a scenario, Trump’s rhetoric might encourage others within his administration and political base to attack the judiciary, further undermining its credibility and independence. This could create an environment where judges feel pressured to rule in ways that align with Trump’s political agenda — or risk becoming targets of public attacks and harassment.
Appointment of More Ideologically Aligned Judges
Trump has already reshaped the judiciary by appointing conservative judges at a historic pace, with more than 200 federal judges confirmed during his first term. If re-elected, he would have the opportunity to further influence the courts by appointing even more judges who align with his political views. Since federal judges serve lifetime appointments, these decisions would have long-lasting consequences, potentially shifting the ideological balance of the judiciary for decades to come.
This raises the concern that a judiciary increasingly shaped by Trump appointees could become more sympathetic to executive overreach or policies that challenge democratic norms. Legal experts have warned that stacking the courts with ideologically aligned judges could lead to rulings that favor the executive branch, weakening the judiciary’s role as a check on presidential power. This dynamic is particularly concerning in cases related to immigration, executive orders, and enforcing democratic safeguards, such as voting rights.
How Trump’s Reelection Could Shape the Judiciary and Democracy
Politicization of the Judiciary
Further politicizing the judiciary could become a defining feature of Trump’s second term. If judges are increasingly viewed as political actors rather than impartial arbiters, the judiciary will become less respected and less effective in holding the executive branch accountable. This erosion of trust in the courts threatens the delicate balance of power that defines the American system of government.
The risks are clear: a judiciary perceived as partisan could pave the way for unchecked executive power. Without a strong, independent judiciary, there is little to prevent the executive branch from overstepping its authority, potentially eroding democratic norms and the rule of law.
Erosion of Checks and Balances
In the American system of government, the judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If Trump’s attacks on the judiciary succeed in undermining this balance, the executive branch could feel less constrained by judicial oversight. This would weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on presidential power, threatening the integrity of the Constitution itself.
Legal scholars have pointed out that Trump’s behavior mirrors that of authoritarian leaders who view the judiciary as an obstacle to their power. In countries like Hungary and Poland, where the judiciary has been undermined, democratic institutions have suffered. Trump’s reelection could signal a similar trend in the U.S., where a weakened judiciary cannot defend democratic principles.
The Potential for Reform and Resistance
Judicial Reform Movements
Calls for reform are likely to increase in response to the erosion of judicial independence. Proposals could include term limits for federal judges, changes to the appointment process, or measures aimed at increasing transparency in the judiciary. Judicial reform movements have gained momentum after controversial rulings like Dobbs, and Trump’s reelection could accelerate these efforts.
One of the most contentious proposals is expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, often called “court-packing.” While controversial, some view this idea as a necessary counterbalance to the influence of Trump-appointed justices. However, such reforms would likely face significant opposition and could deepen partisan divisions around the judiciary.
Resistance from the Judiciary
Despite Trump’s attacks, the judiciary has shown resilience. Judges have continued to rule against his administration when they believed it was warranted, and the courts have remained an essential check on executive power. Notably, courts played a critical role in rejecting Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, with judges appointed by Trump himself ruling against baseless claims of voter fraud.
The judiciary may find new ways to resist attempts to politicize the courts. This could involve high-profile rulings that reaffirm the courts’ independence and institutional reforms aimed at reinforcing judicial impartiality and integrity.
Long-Term Consequences for American Democracy
The Legacy of Trump’s Influence on the Judiciary
Trump’s attacks on the judiciary could have long-lasting consequences beyond his presidency. If Trump’s approach is normalized, future presidents might feel emboldened to criticize and undermine the courts when rulings go against their policies. This could lead to a judiciary that is less independent and more vulnerable to political pressures, eroding one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy.
As legal scholar Laurence Tribe has warned, “If the judiciary is delegitimized, there is nothing to stop the slide into authoritarianism.” Trump’s approach to the courts has already set the stage for such a slide, and his reelection could accelerate this process.
Rebuilding Trust in the Judiciary
Rebuilding public trust in the judiciary will be essential for the health of American democracy. Efforts to restore the judiciary’s credibility could include reforms to increase transparency, improve civic education about the courts, and foster public engagement with the legal system.
One example of this could be greater judicial outreach to the public, where judges and legal professionals explain the importance of judicial independence and the role of courts in upholding constitutional principles. Ultimately, the judiciary must reaffirm its role as an impartial check on power to prevent future erosion of democratic norms.
Conclusion
The judiciary is one of the cornerstones of American democracy, designed to ensure that no one — not even the president — is above the law. Donald Trump’s attacks on the judiciary during his first term set a dangerous precedent, one that could deepen if he is reelected in 2024. The consequences of these attacks are far-reaching, threatening not only the independence of the courts but also the balance of power within the American government.
As we approach another pivotal election, it is more important than ever to recognize the value of a robust and independent judiciary. If we fail to protect this institution, we risk undermining the very foundations of our democracy and the rule of law that sustains it.