This is an article from the June 2025 Civitas Examiner (Volume 2, No. 3) and was written by one of our students, Owen F. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of Civitas other than respect for the value of open dialogue. To read more Civitas Examiner stories or to submit your own, click here.
In 2025, the American political system is dealing with the challenges of a rise in polarization. With Donald Trump returning to the presidency for a second non-consecutive term, tensions between the executive and judicial branches have come back into focus. Trump’s strong use of executive authority through sweeping executive orders, agency changes, and legal battles has raised previous debates about the limits of presidential power and the judiciary’s role in restraining it.
The federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, now faces a constitutional dilemma shaped by the very executive it is tasked with checking. Former President Trump’s appointments of Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh created a 6–3 conservative supermajority, a rare and influential shift in the Court’s history. This supermajority now confronts high-stakes legal challenges in 2025, including cases on immigration enforcement, agency authority, executive privilege, and criminal immunity. The legitimacy and independence of the Court are being tested as it navigates the balance of power between branches in an era of heightened political tension.
“Trump is pushing the limits of presidential power more than any president in modern American history,” Professor Edward Cantu of UMKC Law said. “Time will tell whether the current Supreme Court will stand up to Trump’s excesses.” Former Professor Joel Goldstein of SLU Law emphasized that the judiciary’s core role in a democracy is to check executive authority critically. The founding fathers envisioned this role as grounded in the principles of checks and balances. Without it, he noted, the risk of authoritarian drift increases.
Trump’s return to office featured a quick and aggressive claim of executive control. Within weeks, new executive orders tightened immigration enforcement, relaxed environmental regulation, and centralized federal agencies under more direct White House authority. While popular among Trump’s supporters, these moves have drawn legal scrutiny and raised concerns among constitutional scholars and civil rights advocates. “There has never been anything like how Trump ‘flooded the zone,’ issuing hundreds of highly impactful executive orders… The results have mostly been devastating,” said retired contract attorney Jim Eidelman, who sees Trump’s style of governance as a significant expansion in the decades-long process of increased executive power.
An AP–NORC poll from April 2025 found that over 50% of Americans believe President Trump has too much power, while only about 30% believe the judiciary does. This consensus signals deep concern over a potential imbalance in government structure, especially among independents and Democrats. These two political groups within America have been very critical in the resistance movements, such as attempts to establish term limits for SCOTUS Justices as former President Joe Biden proposed during the end of his term in 2024 and congressional action in 2021 with the “Judiciary Act of 2021” to increase SCOTUS Justices from 9 to 13.
Perhaps most controversially, Trump has sought to reorganize the Department of Justice (DOJ) in ways that critics argue could undermine its independence. Proposals to limit the independence of federal prosecutors and appoint loyalists to key oversight positions have been compared to past efforts to politicize the DOJ. One most notable example is the post-2020 election in which Trump tried to leverage the department to spread false claims about election fraud and even urged DOJ officials to seize voting machines. He also reportedly attempted to replace the Attorney General (Bill Barr) with someone more willing to support his efforts. “Trump has made clear that he sees the Department of Justice as a way to exercise political power over his enemies,” said Professor Chad Flanders, warning of the potential for a justice system shaped by partisanship.
Additionally, the president has used broad interpretations of the Article II powers to support unilateral national security, contracting, and surveillance actions, expanding what some scholars call the “imperial presidency.” This is defined as a U.S. presidency that is characterized by greater power than the Constitution allows. While Trump is not the first to test these boundaries, his actions represent a significant increase in scale and speed compared to past presidents. In the past, presidents such as Andrew Jackson most notably ignored the ruling of Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, which ruled that the Native Americans in Worcester were considered a distinct political community. Jackson ended up not honoring the court decision, saying, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” He then proceeded to remove Worcester and other groups to Indian-designated territories in modern-day Oklahoma.
“The filibuster rules in the Senate and a Congress unwilling to act have encouraged presidents to bypass legislative limits,” Eidelman noted, arguing that systemic dysfunction has emboldened the presidency on both sides of the aisle. A 2025 Elon University poll showed that 67% of Americans are concerned about a possible constitutional clash between the executive and judicial branches. Even among Republican respondents, concern was present, underscoring the perceived fragility of checks and balances.
In response, the judiciary has started to push back. Several federal courts have issued temporary injunctions that block or limit the scope of executive orders, citing procedural violations and possible constitutional overreach. Still, some scholars remain skeptical about the Supreme Court’s willingness to challenge the president. “The lower courts are serving as an effective check. The Supreme Court is not,” Cantu noted, pointing to “an erroneously expansive view of presidential power” among conservative justices.
Professor Goldstein added that political polarization has complicated the judiciary’s position. When one party holds disproportionate influence over the executive and judicial branches, the courts’ perceived independence from the president can be undermined, fueling public skepticism about their role as neutral law mediators. “The courts’ support for the stronger executive and inability to respond to Trump’s avalanche of actions is part of the trend,” said Eidelman. “To the extent that they have been ruling… they have mostly supported Trump’s actions.”
In a May 2025 Marquette Law School poll, over 70% of Americans across party lines agreed that the president must comply with rulings from the Supreme Court and other federal courts. This reflects strong public support for the judiciary’s authority, even amid deep political polarization. Despite growing concerns about executive overreach, most Americans still uphold the principle of checks and balances. The data suggests that institutional legitimacy remains resilient in the public mind, even as constraints appear to weaken.
The Supreme Court, despite its 6–3 conservative majority, has approached recent constitutional challenges with caution regarding public opinion and its potential legacy in question. In a landmark 2025 ruling on presidential immunity, the Court upheld limited protections for the presidency but firmly reiterated that no one, including the president, is above the law. This nuanced decision struck a delicate balance, preserving the dignity of the office while affirming judicial oversight. By avoiding both total deference and direct confrontation, the Court aimed to maintain its legitimacy amid intense political scrutiny.
However, the Court’s careful stance has not protected it from criticism. Legal experts warn of a possible credibility crisis if the public perceives the judiciary as too politicized or passive in defending democratic principles. Professor Andrea Katz of Washington University Law observed that “federal courts have struck down or put many of President Trump’s orders on hold since January, but in the long run, the courts have been largely friendly to the president.” She added, “Whether this changes in the next 3.5 years remains to be seen.”
Goldstein noted that historically, most presidents have respected judicial rulings, even when politically inconvenient, pointing to Eisenhower’s enforcement of Brown v. Board as an example. However, that pattern has begun to erode in recent years, and executive defiance of the courts could seriously challenge the rule of law. “Trump has taken total control of Congress in a way that senators and members of Congress are afraid to stand up to him,” Eidelman said. “The courts’ deference reflects some of the same fear.”
Since 2016, the United States has experienced a steady decline in judicial constraints on executive power, as measured by the V-Dem Institute. This trend reflects growing concerns about executive overreach, politicization of the judiciary, and erosion of institutional checks and balances. Although there was a brief rebound in 2021–2022, likely due to renewed respect for judicial independence in the first years of the Biden Administration, early 2025 data suggest a renewed deterioration with the return of Trump. This may mark a critical inflection point, with long-term implications for respect of rule of law and the judicial process.
This current situation makes 2025 a crucial time for American governance. Public trust in government institutions is low, but political division continues to grow. The separation of powers, once a source of stability, now appears under pressure. Katz noted, “The Court is now the main check on presidential power,” even though it has mainly helped expand executive authority over the past several decades. Whether the judiciary will continue to serve as a meaningful check on executive power or whether executive actions will change governance faster than courts can react remains uncertain.
“Presidential power has been slowly ballooning over the past century,” said Cantu, “but Trump is attempting to increase the expansion of that power exponentially.” The outcome of this struggle will shape Trump’s legacy and the future of the division of power in the American republic. At its best, the relationship between the executive and judicial branches is dynamic and self-correcting. At its worst, it becomes a struggle for control.
Goldstein warned that when accountability between branches breaks down because of partisanship, democracy is at risk. Eidelman shared a similar concern, saying, “Unfortunately, I do not think people think much about democracy.” He added, “Those thinking about it probably see the court’s reluctance or inability to stop Trump’s overreach as bad for democracy.” Together, their views highlight how the relationship between the executive and judicial branches in the coming years could be a key test of whether American democracy can hold up under pressure.
