In hardly any other institution is Donald Trump’s will to power more visible than in the Supreme Court of the United States. With an ultra-conservative six-to-three majority, the highest court has increasingly transformed from a place of constitutional interpretation into a political instrument - a forum where rulings seem no longer shaped by legal reasoning but by ideological allegiance. On key issues such as executive authority, presidential immunity, immigration policy, and LGBTQ rights, six justices consistently vote in Trump’s favor: Chief Justice John Roberts often takes a moderating stance but has recently clearly sided with the conservative bloc. Clarence Thomas, the court’s most senior justice, stands ideologically firm with Trump and has recently been embroiled in major conflicts of interest. Samuel Alito, an aggressive culture warrior, shapes jurisprudence with a distinctly religious-conservative agenda. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee, is considered doctrinaire on deregulation and the concentration of executive power. Brett Kavanaugh, confirmed amid protest, reliably backs Trump’s positions, particularly in matters of criminal law. And Amy Coney Barrett, pushed through just before the 2020 election, has since become a defender of broad presidential authority. These six voices form Trump’s iron majority - a judicial fortress where liberal warnings fall silent.
Even before Trump began his second term in January 2025, the Supreme Court had paved the way for his return - first by ruling that he could remain on the ballot despite ongoing indictments, and later with the controversial immunity decision that shielded him from prosecution over his attempts to influence the 2020 election. The ruling not only expanded the protective scope of the presidency - it also sent a clear signal: Trump is allowed what others are not. And he seized the opportunity. Since his return to the White House, the court has acted with striking deference to the president. This became especially clear in the June 27 decision that made it significantly harder for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against new government measures - a tool that had often been used to halt Trump’s most radical decrees. The response from the liberal justices came swiftly. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued stark warnings about a dangerous shift in power in favor of the executive. Jackson spoke of a “grave threat to the American system of government.” Amy Coney Barrett, author of the decision, countered that one should not demand an “imperial judiciary” while simultaneously criticizing an “imperial executive” - but the climate was already poisoned. In the so-called emergency docket - the court’s shadow docket - numerous preliminary rulings have been handed down in recent months, nearly all favoring Trump. Residency rights for migrants have been revoked, deportations accelerated, and Musk’s radical budget cuts at the “Department of Government Efficiency” pushed through - often without oral arguments but with a clear bias. These decisions may be formally interim, but they strongly signal where the conservative majority stands - firmly at the president’s side.
Most devastating, however, is the record on trans rights. In three consecutive rulings, protections for LGBTQ individuals were significantly rolled back. The court upheld a ban on medical treatment for trans youth in Tennessee - a decision already serving as a precedent for other states. The ban on trans individuals serving in the military was also upheld, despite constitutional objections from lower courts. And at the end of the court’s term, the majority ruled in favor of religious parents in Maryland who sought to prevent their children from being exposed to LGBTQ-themed books in school. While Samuel Alito celebrated the ruling as a victory for religious freedom, Sotomayor warned in her dissent of an assault on the “very heart of public education.” The liberal justices appear increasingly powerless. Their dissents are sharp, pleading, at times almost despairing - and yet ineffective. Jackson accused her colleagues of granting, by eliminating nationwide injunctions, a de facto license for unlawful government action. Sotomayor, in reference to expedited deportations to third countries, spoke of “rewarding lawlessness.” And on the trans healthcare decision, she wrote, “This ruling authorizes - without a second thought - immeasurable harm to children and families.” Any change to this dynamic seems unlikely. A potential retirement of a conservative justice that might shift the court’s balance has not materialized, despite speculation. Clarence Thomas (77) and Samuel Alito (75) remain firmly in place. With a Republican majority in the Senate secured at least through the end of 2026, they can plan their succession without pressure. Thomas, already the longest-serving current justice, is approaching the historic record of William O. Douglas - 36 years on the Supreme Court. He has three years to go. Three years in which Trump can continue to reshape the judiciary. Because if the Supreme Court becomes an extension of the executive branch, it is not only the judiciary that loses its independence. It is the very foundation of democracy that comes under threat.
English 
German 
