Sure. Okay. Let’s do this.
Donald Trump posted to Truth Social this week to register his outrage at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who had called the Supreme Court illegitimate. “Hakeem Jeffries just called the Supreme Court of the United States an illegitimate Court!” Trump wrote. “This is a Low IQ individual, who should not be allowed to talk that way about one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World. He should withdraw the statement, IMMEDIATELY! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
One of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World, he says.
Well, let’s take a look at what was behind Jeffries’s criticism of the Court. Context matters here. Jeffries was responding to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, handed down Tuesday — a ruling that eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a critical civil rights protection that has long served as the backstop against racially discriminatory redistricting. The decision, written by Justice Alito and joined by the Court’s full conservative majority, struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, a map that itself existed only because a federal court found Louisiana’s previous map likely violated the VRA. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, the majority opinion had rendered Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” The practical consequences are stark: analysts estimate that without the strength of the VRA, up to 12 seats in southeastern states could flip from Democrat-leaning to Republican-leaning. Jeffries, standing with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, put it plainly: “affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone, racial tolerance gone, the Voting Rights Act largely gone.”
So no, Hakeem Jeffries does not need to withdraw that statement. The crown jewel of the civil rights movement — the law that ended Jim Crow at the ballot box — has just been gutted by a 6-3 partisan vote, and calling that Court illegitimate is not a provocation. It’s a description.
Now. To the man demanding the apology.
This is the same Donald Trump who, just a few weeks ago, after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs in a 6-3 ruling that included two of his own appointees, posted what Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney characterized as “one of the most incendiary attacks on the court in memory.” The post was riddled with falsehoods and at over 1,600 words across multiple Truth Social entries, declared that “Our Country was unnecessarily RANSACKED by the United States Supreme Court, which has become little more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization. The sad thing is, they will only get worse!” He said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed of them for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” He thanked the dissenters — Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh — for their “wisdom and courage” while flaying the majority.
That was a few weeks ago. Now the Supreme Court is one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World and Hakeem Jeffries needs to apologize immediately.
The whiplash would be funny if it weren’t such a perfect encapsulation of how this administration — and this president, specifically — relates to institutions generally: they are legitimate and great when they rule for Trump, and weaponized, unjust, and in need of immediate denunciation when they don’t. The Court’s legitimacy, in Trump’s framework, is entirely a function of its vote count in any given case.
And *that’s* the real problem with the Court. We have been tracking the Court’s legitimacy crisis for years now, and the numbers tell a consistent story: just 22% of Americans now say they have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the institution, down from a high of 52% before Bush v. Gore. The Fox News poll from 2024 showed 38% approval — a 20-point drop from the 2017 high, with 83% of respondents saying partisanship plays a role in the Court’s decisions at least some of the time. The public has been saying for years, with increasing clarity, that it views this Court as a political institution. The irony is that the president most responsible for making it one is now demanding that a Democrat retract a statement for noticing.
Of course, Trump is not the only one who has struggled with the concept that the Court’s legitimacy crisis might be of the Court’s own making. John Roberts has spent years insisting that critics of the Court are simply sore losers. As my colleague Joe Patrice documented last June, Roberts’s official position is that if you have a problem with the Court, “it’s because you lost and you’re just venting” — going so far as to compare calling out the justices as partisan hacks to burning crosses on the lawns of Southern federal judges in the 1960s. And in his 2024 year-end report, Roberts returned to form, suggesting that criticism of the Court amounts to intemperance that “may prompt dangerous reactions” — from a Court, as Joe noted, that was “junking decades of precedent every term while enjoying vacations with right-wing activists.” The “all criticism is delegitimizing” school of thought has always been a dodge. Trump just makes it impossible to keep a straight face while delivering it.
It’s also worth noting, as we have before, that Trump wins at the Supreme Court at a 90% clip — a number that tracks neatly with the public’s read of the Court as a partisan institution, and one that makes his tariff-loss meltdown even more remarkable. The one time the Court didn’t deliver, Trump called it ransacked and weaponized. The 90% of the time it does deliver, gutting voting rights and reshaping American democracy along partisan lines, it’s one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World.
As Justice Kagan put it in a speech we covered back in 2022, judges create legitimacy problems for themselves “when they stray into places where it looks like they’re an extension of the political process.” She was right then. She is clearly still right now. But even she probably didn’t anticipate the specific indignity of the president of the United States demanding an apology for a legitimacy critique, weeks after posting the most incendiary attack on the Court in recent memory, when his Court’s partisan majority gutted the Voting Rights Act to tilt the 2026 midterms.
Hakeem Jeffries should withdraw his statement immediately, says the man who called the Court “weaponized and unjust” in March.
Sure.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
The post Donald Trump Wants Everyone (But Him) To Respect The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy appeared first on Above the Law.
Sure. Okay. Let’s do this.
Donald Trump posted to Truth Social this week to register his outrage at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who had called the Supreme Court illegitimate. “Hakeem Jeffries just called the Supreme Court of the United States an illegitimate Court!” Trump wrote. “This is a Low IQ individual, who should not be allowed to talk that way about one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World. He should withdraw the statement, IMMEDIATELY! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
One of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World, he says.
Well, let’s take a look at what was behind Jeffries’s criticism of the Court. Context matters here. Jeffries was responding to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, handed down Tuesday — a ruling that eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a critical civil rights protection that has long served as the backstop against racially discriminatory redistricting. The decision, written by Justice Alito and joined by the Court’s full conservative majority, struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which had created a second majority-Black district, a map that itself existed only because a federal court found Louisiana’s previous map likely violated the VRA. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, the majority opinion had rendered Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” The practical consequences are stark: analysts estimate that without the strength of the VRA, up to 12 seats in southeastern states could flip from Democrat-leaning to Republican-leaning. Jeffries, standing with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, put it plainly: “affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone, racial tolerance gone, the Voting Rights Act largely gone.”
So no, Hakeem Jeffries does not need to withdraw that statement. The crown jewel of the civil rights movement — the law that ended Jim Crow at the ballot box — has just been gutted by a 6-3 partisan vote, and calling that Court illegitimate is not a provocation. It’s a description.
Now. To the man demanding the apology.
This is the same Donald Trump who, just a few weeks ago, after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs in a 6-3 ruling that included two of his own appointees, posted what Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney characterized as “one of the most incendiary attacks on the court in memory.” The post was riddled with falsehoods and at over 1,600 words across multiple Truth Social entries, declared that “Our Country was unnecessarily RANSACKED by the United States Supreme Court, which has become little more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization. The sad thing is, they will only get worse!” He said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed of them for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” He thanked the dissenters — Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh — for their “wisdom and courage” while flaying the majority.
That was a few weeks ago. Now the Supreme Court is one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World and Hakeem Jeffries needs to apologize immediately.
The whiplash would be funny if it weren’t such a perfect encapsulation of how this administration — and this president, specifically — relates to institutions generally: they are legitimate and great when they rule for Trump, and weaponized, unjust, and in need of immediate denunciation when they don’t. The Court’s legitimacy, in Trump’s framework, is entirely a function of its vote count in any given case.
And *that’s* the real problem with the Court. We have been tracking the Court’s legitimacy crisis for years now, and the numbers tell a consistent story: just 22% of Americans now say they have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the institution, down from a high of 52% before Bush v. Gore. The Fox News poll from 2024 showed 38% approval — a 20-point drop from the 2017 high, with 83% of respondents saying partisanship plays a role in the Court’s decisions at least some of the time. The public has been saying for years, with increasing clarity, that it views this Court as a political institution. The irony is that the president most responsible for making it one is now demanding that a Democrat retract a statement for noticing.
Of course, Trump is not the only one who has struggled with the concept that the Court’s legitimacy crisis might be of the Court’s own making. John Roberts has spent years insisting that critics of the Court are simply sore losers. As my colleague Joe Patrice documented last June, Roberts’s official position is that if you have a problem with the Court, “it’s because you lost and you’re just venting” — going so far as to compare calling out the justices as partisan hacks to burning crosses on the lawns of Southern federal judges in the 1960s. And in his 2024 year-end report, Roberts returned to form, suggesting that criticism of the Court amounts to intemperance that “may prompt dangerous reactions” — from a Court, as Joe noted, that was “junking decades of precedent every term while enjoying vacations with right-wing activists.” The “all criticism is delegitimizing” school of thought has always been a dodge. Trump just makes it impossible to keep a straight face while delivering it.
It’s also worth noting, as we have before, that Trump wins at the Supreme Court at a 90% clip — a number that tracks neatly with the public’s read of the Court as a partisan institution, and one that makes his tariff-loss meltdown even more remarkable. The one time the Court didn’t deliver, Trump called it ransacked and weaponized. The 90% of the time it does deliver, gutting voting rights and reshaping American democracy along partisan lines, it’s one of the Greatest Institutions anywhere in the World.
As Justice Kagan put it in a speech we covered back in 2022, judges create legitimacy problems for themselves “when they stray into places where it looks like they’re an extension of the political process.” She was right then. She is clearly still right now. But even she probably didn’t anticipate the specific indignity of the president of the United States demanding an apology for a legitimacy critique, weeks after posting the most incendiary attack on the Court in recent memory, when his Court’s partisan majority gutted the Voting Rights Act to tilt the 2026 midterms.
Hakeem Jeffries should withdraw his statement immediately, says the man who called the Court “weaponized and unjust” in March.
Sure.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
