The Atlantic Daily newsletter is your daily guide to the latest news, new ideas, and cultural recommendations. Stay informed and inspired by signing up here. Yesterday, the Trump administration clashed with a federal judge over the handling of Venezuelan deportations to El Salvador. Justice Department attorneys attempted to cancel a hearing and avoided providing details to Judge James Boasberg, leading to calls for his removal from the case. President Donald Trump also weighed in, criticizing the judge on social media and calling for impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare response, emphasizing that impeachment is not the appropriate response to judicial disagreements and highlighting the importance of the appellate review process. Roberts condemned Trump’s attack on the judiciary as detrimental to the rule of law. The focus on personal attacks rather than addressing systemic issues is a concern, echoing past instances of political interference in the judiciary. The administration’s actions raise questions about compliance with court orders and the potential for further defiance. Despite political tensions, Roberts stresses the importance of upholding the judiciary’s integrity and independence.
A group of dedicated judges strive to ensure fairness for all who appear before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all appreciate. Recently, President Trump claimed that Chief Justice John Roberts has “Obama judges” with differing viewpoints. The personal differences between Roberts and Trump are significant, with Roberts being a serious and intellectual lawyer, while Trump is known for his loud and bold persona. Despite these differences, both men have similar views on presidential power. Last summer, Roberts made a decision that granted Trump significant immunity for his actions as president. However, their relationship may be strained as evidenced by an encounter where Trump thanked Roberts, possibly for swearing him in, although Trump’s response to Roberts’ recent criticism may be less favorable. Roberts may be avoiding involvement in Trump’s disputes with the courts to maintain impartiality or because he believes Trump will prevail in the Supreme Court. Trump’s approach challenges norms, putting pressure on institutions to conform to his partisan agenda or risk losing the debate. Roberts, who once compared judges to umpires, now faces a dilemma akin to defending officiating during a scandal. The stakes are high, as the game being played involves more than just the strike zone.
