How deferential is the Roberts court to presidential power?

Adam Feldman discusses the Roberts Supreme Court's approach to presidential power, especially regarding its treatment of cases involving the U. S. government. By examining historical patterns and recent data, the analysis challenges the notion that the Roberts Court is particularly deferential to executive authority under President Trump.

1. Concerns about Executive Power

• There are claims that the Roberts Court is excessively supportive of executive power, particularly favoring President Trump's authority.

• Contrasting opinions from various organizations highlight this perception.

2. Historical Context

• Historically, Supreme Courts have shown varied levels of support for presidential power, influenced by the president's political party.

• Research indicates justices tend to favor executive actions aligned with their political ideologies.

3. Support for the U. S. Government

• The analysis examines the percentage of cases where the Court has supported the U. S. government from 1803 to 2024.

• Support rates vary significantly by the chief justice era, with some periods showing higher support for the government than others.

4. Roberts Court's Performance

• The Roberts Court's support rate for the U. S. government stands at 49.39%, notably lower than historical averages.

• This is seen as surprising, given the Republican composition of the Court during times of Republican presidency.

5. Partisan Considerations

• The analysis reveals that Republican-appointed courts have generally supported government positions more frequently during Republican presidencies.

• Recent patterns indicate increasing partisan alignment in judicial decisions.

6. Individual Justices' Support

• Individual voting patterns show variation among justices, with some aligning with the government more than others regardless of party.

• Notably, Justice Alito shows strong support for the government, while Justices Kagan and Gorsuch display contrasting rates based on party alignment.

7. Limitations of the Analysis

• The analysis does not cover cases related to the "shadow docket" or agency deference where the U. S. is not a central party.

• It excludes the distinction between Trump's two terms and does not assess specific issues in cases.

8. Conclusion: Complex Dynamics

• The portrayal of the Roberts Court as unduly deferential is oversimplified; it shows lower support for the federal government compared to historical benchmarks.

• The analysis reveals a nuanced relationship between the Court and executive power, influenced by changing political landscapes and individual judicial philosophies.

The Roberts Court's relationship with executive authority is complex, not fitting neatly into narratives of excessive deference. Historical data suggests that while there are patterns favoring partisan alignment, the overall support for the government during the Roberts era is below average compared to previous courts. This indicates a shift in judicial philosophy regarding executive power and underscores the necessity for a deeper examination of these trends in contemporary governance. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/how-deferential-is-the-roberts-court-to-presidential-power/