970x125
The odds are, in the coming months, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that limits Donald Trump’s unilateral assertions of power. Perhaps the court will strike down the president’s radical and unprecedented imposition of tariffs without congressional involvement or his denial of birthright citizenship to individuals born in the U.S.
Although it is impossible to know how such a situation will play out, a certain fatalism is now germinating. Political observers and even unnamed administration officials wonder in private what will happen if Trump simply defies the court, asserting his executive power and thumbing his nose at the rule of law and the constitutional system.
I believe that such a decision to ignore the Supreme Court would be more difficult and costly to Trump than many assume.
A court decision that delivers a clear, unified rebuke to the president by full court or 7-2 supermajority would marshal the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Another defiant president crumbled in 1974 when a unanimous decision instructed President Nixon to turn over the damning White House tapes or invite the revolt of his own party and much of the country.
And the court’s decision will have even more force if it deals with a situation where Trump blatantly contradicts the Constitution, as with his denial of the 14th Amendment’s granting of citizenship to “all persons born” in the United States.
Beyond their rightfully held constitutional authority, the Supreme Court also enjoys the advantage of controlling the timing of its rulings. Trump’s approach will likely be affected if the court issues a ruling during a period of political vulnerability, such as in the runup to the 2026 elections. If congressional Republicans are scrambling to win reelection in a bad year for their party, the White House may choose to avoid a constitutional crisis that forces Republican candidates to take a side.
Although congressional Republicans’ loyalty to the president has held so far, such a scenario would tempt lawmakers to protect themselves by announcing, “I’m going to tell the president that he’s wrong.”
Trump’s presumption that he has the power to impose his will may also be misplaced in certain cases. Trump ordered his administration to quickly cancel nearly nine out of 10 USAID programs. Unprecedented but straightforward and easy to do. But the president lacks comparable tools to tame the Federal Reserve Bank and its governors.
The Fed’s independence dulls Trump’s scheme to steer its interest rate policy and replace a governor with an ally. The Fed’s operations are anchored in 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks and their networks of privately owned commercial banks. Its funding is derived from the bank’s operations in capital markets and is independent of Congress and the president. Trump’s favorite weapon of cutting budgets to compel obedience won’t work with the Fed if he pushed back on a potential Supreme Court decision that ruled against his firing of a Fed governor.
Then there is the matter of the remainder of the judiciary. How will it respond if Trump disregarded a clear order? In ordinary times, the federal legal system privileges the administration and its actions. But if the president spurned the Supreme Court of the United States, the judicial system would become even less inclined to trust the administration and its lawyers and give them the benefit of the doubt in other cases.
The costs of defying the Supreme Court in one instance could have ripple effects, leading to a cascading of other rulings against the administration that would make such a move particularly costly.
Trump would also be reliant on the people in his administration to carry out his decision. Causing an unprecedented constitutional crisis will pose a question of great historic import: will officials decide to obey the court or the president? Resting in the balance are their current jobs and the historic consequences of spurning the rule of law. Trump’s actions in his first term provoked resignations of protest from the Department of Justice and internal dissension among senior officials.
And make no mistake, the consequences of defying the court would be drastic. After all, the national and international economy and world leaders have always assumed that the United State is a nation of laws. But Trump’s repudiation of the rule of law would set off a constitutional crisis in the U.S., rattle investor confidence in the dollar, and trigger a sharp sell-off in the Stock Market. Although there is no precedent for constitutional defiance, markets did fall by 10 percent in the two days after high tariffs were imposed in April 2025.
Trump’s decision to defy the Supreme Court is hardly a foregone conclusion, even for him. The reality is that the stakes for Trump — and the country — of flouting the rule of law are enormous and may bring about the president’s political downfall.
Lawerence R. Jacobs is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota
