The Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, with renewed public and political concern over their recent rulings, the justices’ personal safety and even their future makeup.
Chief Justice John Roberts, surrounded by his eight colleagues, will call the court into public session precisely at 10 a.m. EDT with a pair of scheduled oral arguments. Their first case from the bench will be a major one: a federal-state environmental dispute over holding oil and gas companies liable for climate change harms.
Other high-profile appeals are already on the argument docket:
NEWSOM PROMISES NEW LEGAL FIGHT AFTER TRUMP GETS SUPREME COURT VICTORY ON MAIL-IN VOTING
But the Supreme Court under Roberts’ leadership continues to struggle against negative public attitudes over their reputation as a non-political actor upholding the law and Constitution.
“The chief justice is in a tough position in that he is an institutionalist and a traditionalist at a time in our nation’s history where a lot of institutions and traditions have come under pressure like they haven’t in a long time,” said Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and former top Justice Department official. “And so in many ways, he is trying to kind of buck a lot of the tide right now by really insisting and hewing to these traditions of the institutions that have governed Washington for a long time.”
The new term will feature more constitutional disputes over the power of the executive, with current or anticipated fights over immigration, federal bureaucracy reforms and possibly the White House ballroom and Kennedy Center construction projects.
And if recent history is any predictor, the justices are likely to offer a mixed, nuanced series of rulings both for and against President Donald Trump’s ambitious agenda.
The last term saw him and his allies lose over sweeping reciprocal tariffs, birthright citizenship and removal of Federal Reserve governors; but prevail on various immigration policies, mid-decade redistricting and political gerrymandering, and federal campaign spending.
For the most part, the 6-3 conservative majority has greenlighted the administration’s power, especially in a series of preliminary decisions from its so-called “shadow docket” that allow Trump to move ahead – for now – on a range of issues.
The Trump Justice Department has won over 70-percent of its emergency cases before the Supreme Court since 2025 – applications that ask a challenged executive policy be enforced temporarily, while the larger issues are further litigated in the lower courts.
Those included new federal rules for verifying a voter’s citizenship status ahead of the November midterms; and approval for continued construction of the ballroom.
Decisions in Trump’s second term have him and Republican lawmakers sharply criticizing their judicial losses on one hand, and Democratic leaders sounding the alarm when their side does not prevail.
The judiciary has always weathered such criticism, but the personal tone of the attacks has only increased, as have the calls for sweeping accountability.
Those on the right have demanded impeaching federal judges who block White House policies, while those on the left have renewed calls for drastic changes to the court’s structure.
The president himself amped up the tensions dramatically, after losing a key decision over federal efforts to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections.
In a wild Truth Social post, he took aim at the three members he appointed to the bench – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” wrote Trump after the September 14 ruling, adding, “The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History.”
Those on the left have their own beefs. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told the National Association of Black Journalists that “dramatic Supreme Court reform is necessary…there’s a variety of different options that are on the table and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.”
As the midterms approach, angry and energized Democrats hoping to take control of the House and maybe the Senate have tried to rally the base during the midterm races.
Among their proposals are renewed calls for 18-year term limits for the justices, expanding the number on the bench to 13 or more from the current nine and an independently-enforced code of ethics.
All this has added to increasing public perception the high court is motivated by something other than its constitutional obligations.
A Washington Post/Ipsos poll in July found 46-percent of Americans think the justices rule on Trump administration policies based on their political views, while just 25 percent see the court as ruling based on the law.
Gallup’s July poll showed the Supreme Court’s job approval slumped to a record low of 33 percent and a record high 61-percent disapproval, driven by a steep drop in Republicans’ backing of the court since last year.
And the most-recent Fox News survey revealed a 38-percent public job approval for the court, and a record high 45-percent believing the justices are too conservative.
That was up from 34-percent in 2022, and a low of 16-percent in 2015 and 2010.
Numbers aside, the amplified partisan rhetoric is having real-world consequences.
Several federal judges have told Fox News that budget shortfalls have compromised their physical security, at a time when they say threats against members of the bench have become more concerning.
The U-S Marshals report 370 threats made to federal judges as of July 1, a 31-percent year-over-year increase.
“Extraordinary safety measures” have been taken in some cases by federal law enforcement, one federal judge told Fox News, without offering details.
While “criticism is fair game, intimidation is a different thing entirely,” Justice Elena Kagan told a congressional panel in July. “When political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to do things that they like rather than the things that they don’t, that’s where we really have crossed a line.”
Justice Barrett told the same House committee, “The threat level is really high.”
On at least one occasion, she has had to wear a bulletproof vest away from the court, and was a victim of a swatting incident over the summer at her home.
TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM CONSTRUCTION GETS ANOTHER LIFELINE FROM SCOTUS AMID HEATED LEGAL FIGHT
The job of managing the court’s docket falls to Roberts, who has faced bipartisan criticism for perceived partisanship.
Appointed by a Republican president, he more than any conservative on this current bench has been willing to rule against Trump and his Republican supporters.
That mixed record has been especially acute in recent days, where his influence was apparent in a series of decisions on midterm election matters, separately favoring both political parties.
That includes fights over congressional redistricting, mail ballots, a DHS database for voter eligibility and campaign ad spending.
More such emergency disputes are expected to reach the high court in coming weeks, pre- and post-election.
His colleagues have come to the chief justices’ defense.
“I don’t see this as a court that is just like: We’re just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does. You know, quite the opposite,” Kagan said at a judicial conference in July. “I think that that is a bad rap.”
Roberts himself in May defended the court against accusations of partisanship.
“We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure that people grasp that as much as is appropriate,” he said at a judicial conference.
The Court’s new term will continue to be defined by various Trump executive actions being challenged by progressive states and private groups.
That includes pending appeals over transgenders in the military, tariffs, private data access and federal agency cuts.
Other upcoming challenges include mandated Ten Commandments displays in public schools, free speech fights and abortion access.
Much of what the court decides to tackle will likely turn on whether Democrats can gain control Congress after November, and their ability to legislatively tame Trump’s aggressive assertion of presidential power.
“This term is once again, set to deliver us a series of decisions concerning some of the most fundamental aspects of our government, including the relationship among the three branches of our federal government, and the relationships between the federal government and the states,” said legal analyst Dupree. “I think we’re also going to see in the near future a lot of election-related cases about the right to vote, how you protect it, and how we ensure the integrity of our election. So this is a term that promises a lot of big decisions and frankly, something for everyone.”
TRUMP BLASTS SUPREME COURT ‘DISASTER’ AFTER JUSTICES RULE AGAINST HIM ON MAIL-IN VOTING
Add to that the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy in coming months, with much of the speculation centered on 76-year-old Justice Samuel Alito.
Fox News was the first to report earlier this spring he would stay on for another term that effectively ends in late June, and he plans to be on the bench Monday.
This despite public and private pressure from many Republicans – aware they may lose the Senate in November – that he step aside now to give the president a chance to name a fourth member to the court.
Sources close to Alito tell Fox News considerations of his future are driven more by personal practicality rather than politics. They say for now he enjoys the work, and feels he is able to serve with commitment and focus.
