John Roberts’ New Role Model Shows Everything Wrong With the Supreme Court
Published · Updated
Cited: Slate Magazine, Dayton Daily News, FXStreet
TL;DR
Chief Justice John Roberts recently praised William Howard Taft as his role model—a decision that critics say reveals everything wrong with today’s Supreme Court. In a piece for Slate, legal scholars Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan argue that Roberts’ admiration for Taft, who led the court to strike down Reconstruction-era laws that restrained presidents, signals a dangerous shift: the court is increasingly placing the president above enacted federal law. This trend, combined with recent rulings on immunity, election interference, and agency independence, has revived a 19th-century fight over whether the Supreme Court should be supreme over Congress or accountable to it.
Why now
Chief Justice John Roberts recently praised William Howard Taft as his role model—a decision that critics say reveals everything wrong with today’s Supreme Court. In a piece for Slate, legal scholars Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan argue that Roberts’ admiration for Taft, who led the court to strike down Reconstruction-era laws that restrained presidents, signals a dangerous shift: the court is increasingly placing the president above enacted federal law. This trend, combined with recent rulings on immunity, election interference, and agency independence, has revived a 19th-century fight over whether the Supreme Court should be supreme over Congress or accountable to it.
Agree / conflict
- Roberts praised Taft’s legacy: In a Substack post, Roberts wrote admiringly of Taft’s efforts to protect the president from Congress, citing the 1926 *Myers v. United States* case that struck down a law limiting presidential removal powers. - Court has shielded Trump from criminal laws: In *Trump v. United States*, the court exempted the president from most federal criminal statutes, including those prohibiting corruption and election interference. - Reconstruction history repeated: After the Civil War, Congress used statutes to restrain President Andrew Johnson—a lesson the current court has effectively overturned, allowing presidents to defy Congress. - Court uses two conflicting powers: On one hand, it enforces federal statutes (e.g., blocking Trump’s mail-ballot interference). On the other, it strikes down statutes it dislikes, loosening checks on presidential power. - Why this matters: If Congress cannot bind the president with “sticky laws,” future presidents can operate above the law, eroding democratic accountability.
Takeaway
- Understand the stakes: The Supreme Court’s recent rulings are not just legal footnotes—they reshape whether presidents can be held accountable for crimes or corruption. - Watch for 2027 Congress: The next Congress may attempt to pass laws curbing the court’s power, as proposed by Bowie and Renan. This could become a major political battle. - Your voice matters: Public pressure on lawmakers to support judicial accountability can influence policy. Follow organizations tracking court reform, such as the Brennan Center or Demand Justice. - Stay informed: Read Slate’s *Executive Dysfunction* newsletter for weekly updates on how the court is changing presidential power.
- Roberts praised Taft’s legacy: In a Substack post, Roberts wrote admiringly of Taft’s efforts to protect the president from Congress, citing the 1926 *Myers v. United States* case that struck down a law limiting presidential removal powers. - Court has shielded Trump from criminal laws: In *Trump v. United States*, the court exempted the president from most federal criminal statutes, including those prohibiting corruption and election interference. - Reconstruction history repeated: After the Civil War, Congress used statutes to restrain President Andrew Johnson—a lesson the current court has effectively overturned, allowing presidents to defy Congress. - Court uses two conflicting powers: On one hand, it enforces federal statutes (e.g., blocking Trump’s mail-ballot interference). On the other, it strikes down statutes it dislikes, loosening checks on presidential power. - Why this matters: If Congress cannot bind the president with “sticky laws,” future presidents can operate above the law, eroding democratic accountability.
The core of the argument rests on a historical parallel: after the Civil War, Congress passed statutes—like the Tenure of Office Act and the Command of the Army Act—specifically to rein in President Andrew Johnson’s attempts to sabotage Reconstruction. Johnson’s lawyers argued he could ignore those laws to test them in court, but Congress rejected that “more than kingly prerogative.” Johnson was nearly impeached, and the system worked.
Fast forward to 1926. Chief Justice Taft, still bitter over Johnson’s treatment, used *Myers v. United States* to strike down the Tenure of Office Act, declaring that the court had the final say over Congress’s ability to regulate the presidency. Roberts has now revived that doctrine in *Trump v. Slaughter*, shredding century-old protections for independent agency heads and allowing the president to fire watchdogs at will.
Recent cases show the pattern: - Immunity for crimes: *Trump v. United States* exempts the president from federal criminal laws. - Removal power: *Slaughter* lets the president replace independent officials with loyalists. - Congressional defiance: The court has signaled it will not tolerate statutory responses to presidential overreach.
Yet the court also occasionally enforces federal statutes—for example, blocking Trump’s mail-ballot rules and upholding birthright citizenship. This creates a contradictory system where the court acts as both enforcer and destroyer of laws. The authors argue this is unsustainable: a court that defies statutes enables presidents to do the same. The solution, they say, is for Congress to limit the court’s power to strike down laws that restrain the presidency, returning to the Reconstruction-era model of congressional supremacy.
Do you think the Supreme Court should have the final say over Congress—or should Congress be able to bind the president with laws the court can’t overturn? Share this article with someone who cares about the balance of power in Washington. Let us know your thoughts in the comments or on social media using #CourtReform.
*Share this with others who need to stay ahead of this trend!*
FAQ
Why does Roberts admire Taft?
Roberts praised Taft’s leadership in fending off congressional efforts to rein in the court and protecting the president from statutes like the Tenure of Office Act. He sees Taft as a model for judicial independence from Congress.
What was the Tenure of Office Act?
A Reconstruction-era law that required Senate approval for the president to remove certain officials. Andrew Johnson violated it, leading to his impeachment, but the law was later struck down in *Myers v. United States* in 1926.
How does this affect everyday citizens?
If the president can ignore Congress and the court shields him, checks and balances weaken. This means less accountability for corruption, election interference, and abuse of power—impacting voter confidence and the rule of law.
Can Congress fix this?
Yes—the authors argue Congress can pass laws that explicitly limit the court’s jurisdiction to strike down statutes regulating the presidency, similar to how it bound President Johnson. But this requires political will.
Is the court always on Trump’s side?
No. The court has enforced federal statutes to block Trump’s tariff overreach, mail-ballot interference, and attacks on birthright citizenship. The problem is when the court *defies* statutes to empower the president.
Sources
Canonical URL: /trend/2026/john-roberts-new-role-model-shows-everything-wrong-with-the-supreme-court
Disclaimer
Digests summarize public sources. They are not advice, forecasts, or a complete record of every trend.
This digest was compiled by Yanuki using publicly available data and trending information. The content may summarize or reference third-party sources that have not been independently verified. While we aim to provide timely and accurate insights, the information presented may be incomplete or outdated.
All content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or professional advice. Yanuki makes no representations or warranties regarding the reliability or completeness of the information.
This digest may include links to external sources for further context. These links are provided for convenience only and do not imply endorsement.
Always do your own research (DYOR) before making any decisions based on the information presented.