Graphic by Brianna Stockwell ’28
By Liliana Stinson ’27
Contributing Writer
Even before Donald Trump's inauguration as president on Jan. 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States has functioned as a significant political actor. With a few notable exceptions, the nine justices have decided most cases along liberal and conservative ideological lines, and the conservative majority has not shied away from dismantling decades-long precedents in order to pursue a partisan agenda.
How might the political role of the Supreme Court change in the context of Trump’s second term? To answer this question, Mount Holyoke News sat down with Mount Holyoke College President and legal scholar Danielle Holley, who offered insight into the current landscape of the Supreme Court.
The first case the Supreme Court has ruled on relating to Trump’s second term executive orders is Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. This case occurred in response to Executive Order 14169, “REEVALUATING AND REALIGNING UNITED STATES FOREIGN AID,” which ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid programs. On Feb. 10 and 11, recipients of foreign aid and non-profit organizations issued two lawsuits challenging this order, one of which resulted in this case.
On March 5, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision empowering a district judge to move forward with his order that the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development must issue payments for work already performed by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and other organizations and corporations. The payments would total nearly $2 billion. Since these organizations and corporations historically receive federal foreign-assistance funding and had completed work before Trump released the executive order, they required these earnings by law.
This decision is notable: By making the executive branch follow the contracts and federal appropriations guidelines set out by Congress, the Supreme Court is upholding a fundamental separation of powers outlined by the Constitution. However, the majority is extremely slim and has only issued an unsigned, one-paragraph opinion, as opposed to the eight-page slashing dissent authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Additionally, in this dissent, Alito indicates that the dissenting justices would have preferred for the Court to officially review the case on its merits, rather than just deciding to approve or deny the government’s request to vacate the judge’s order.
This is significant, Holley said, as a further review of this case could have implications on the powers of federal judges. “Every district court judge, like we saw with the district court judge in this opinion, has the ability to issue what's called a nationwide injunction,” Holley explained. A nationwide injunction allows judges to block federal policy or orders nationwide. This power has recently become controversial because judges have used it against the Trump administration. “In the previous administration, it was operating in benefit of conservatives. In this administration, it's operating in benefit of liberals,” Holley said.
“I think what the Supreme Court is struggling with is, if you do not like nationwide injunctions, that can't be a partisan view … If you don't like it for USAID, you [can’t] like it for mifepristone,” Holley continued, noting the injunction District Judge Kacsmaryk issued in 2023 suspending FDA approval of mifepristone, a drug crucial to medical abortion.
Indeed, this case touches on the increasing politicization of the judiciary, not only because of conservative outrage against the power of liberal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, but also because of the tendency of those on the far-right to punish any judge — or justice — who rules against Trump.
For example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority decision and allowed the injunction against Trump to go through. After the decision was released, Barrett faced an online barrage from far-right personalities. These attacks included accusing her of being a “DEI hire,” which Holley said indicates the prejudice behind the movement against diversity, equity and inclusion. As Holley described, “When you hear someone say someone is a DEI hire, they're attempting to attack that person on the basis of their race or gender … Amy Coney Barrett is the subject of sexist attacks because she failed to adhere to the party line.”
The attacks on the judiciary have threatened other justices as well. In a March 18 post on Truth Social — the far-right social media platform modeled after the website formerly known as Twitter — Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the Trump administration to cease deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act. This is a largely unprecedented attack on the judiciary, which is intended to operate entirely independently from political influences in order to protect the rule of law.
Indeed, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached, all related to high crimes and misdemeanors in which the judges broke the law or abused their position. The fact that the president has called for judicial impeachment due to a political disagreement is a shocking breach of civil norms, and even evoked a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement issued mere hours after Trump’s social media post. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Though it is extremely unlikely that Congress would actually remove federal judges from office, a representative has introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg in the House.
In response to the growing politicization of the judiciary, Holley said, “We have to fight on every front. So number one, I would encourage people to raise their voices at every opportunity, right, [when] they feel that their First Amendment free speech is being shut down, to petition their government, write to their Congressperson, write to their senator, write to the White House.”
“The second thing is,” Holley continued, “we have to fight in the courts … because, honestly, much of what the current administration is doing is extralegal, is outside of the rule of law … Everyone in our society must be responsible for following the rule of law. And if they aren't, then we aren’t in a democracy.”
Lastly, Holley advocated for the College’s community to gain a thorough understanding of the norms and limits of government power. “We have to gain more knowledge about what our government [is] authorized to do, because this is a time where we have to push back against government authority. Most of the time we think of the government as our protector. In this case, the government is our oppressor,” Holley said. “One of the features of living in what is supposed to be a democratic institution, is to have no fear in saying our government is wrong, our government is not following the rule of law, our government should be challenged and sanctioned based on what they do, and that's one of the most critical things we can do as people who support democracy at this time.”
Madeleine Diesl ’28 contributed fact-checking.
