Soon after the Supreme Court ruled against the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that ‘Trump took hard-earned money from the pockets of working families and the American people and it was time to pay up.’ New York Governor Kathy Hochul said ‘The American people said no. The Supreme Court said no.’ These reactions were among the many celebrating the SCOTUS ruling, but Trump didn’t back up.
Tensions between the White House and the highest court in the nation rose fast when President Donald Trump attacked members of the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled against his use of emergency tariff powers. The legal community responded quickly and in an unusual way.
The American Bar Association, which is widely regarded to be the best group of lawyers in the country, said that what the president stated went too far. ABA President Michelle A. Behnke stated in a formal statement that Trump’s personal attacks on the judges were “not acceptable” and that they crossed “a dangerous line” that puts the safety of the courts and the integrity of the legal system at risk.
“The recent remarks by the president of the United States, leveling personal criticisms against members of the U.S. Supreme Court, are not acceptable and cross a dangerous line that threatens the safety of the judiciary and our judicial process,” said Behnke in a statement.
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court decision overturning Trump’s attempt to rely on emergency authority to impose certain tariffs. Six justices voted for the verdict, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom Trump appointed during his first time in office.
Trump publicly attacked the judges in blunt terms after their ruling. He called Gorsuch and Barrett “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” and said they were “an embarrassment to their families.” He also said that the Court’s liberal justices were devoted to Democrats and called them a “disgrace to our nation.” At one point, he said, without giving any proof, that some members of the Court were influenced by foreign powers.
Behnke spoke out against those claims explicitly. She noted that personal attacks on individual justices, especially claims that they are guided by “foreign interests,” are completely wrong. She warned that these kinds of statements could make people lose faith in the court system, which is supposed to work without political interference.
“Vigorous debate over policy is a strength of our democracy, but attacks that demean the judiciary are not,” Behnke added. “Incendiary rhetoric has helped contribute to the alarming increase in attacks on and threats to our judges. It must stop.”
The ABA’s statement emphasized that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution impartially, regardless of who appointed its members. Judicial independence, Behnke argued, is a foundational pillar of American democracy and must remain free from political intimidation or retaliation.
The Court’s opinion itself appeared to anticipate criticism. In his written reasoning, Justice Gorsuch addressed the broader constitutional framework underlying the dispute. While acknowledging that legislating can be slow and challenging, Gorsuch cautioned against attempts to bypass Congress in pursuit of policy goals.
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” Gorsuch said. “And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”
The criticism of Trump’s remarks was not limited to legal circles. Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, also weighed in. In a statement, McConnell reminded the president that “Congress is not an inconvenience to avoid,” underscoring the constitutional balance between branches of government.
Even conservative media voices expressed concern. The Wall Street Journal described Trump’s language as “ugly,” noting that the same Supreme Court previously ruled in his favor on presidential immunity — a decision with significant personal implications for him.
The clash highlights a deeper debate about executive authority, separation of powers, and the tone of political discourse. While policy disagreements between presidents and courts are hardly new, the intensity and personal nature of this exchange have drawn rare public rebukes from both legal leaders and members of Trump’s own party.
For the ABA, the central issue is not the tariff policy itself, but the preservation of respect for the judicial branch. In its view, criticism of rulings is fair game. Personal denunciations of the justices who issue them are something else entirely — and, as Behnke put it, a line that should not be crossed.
