Roberts defends the Court, but law-firm retaliation narrows the docket

The Supreme Court has demonstrated its independence: on February 20, 2026, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs, holding that the president lacked peacetime authority under IEEPA (New York Times, Washington Post, Houston Public Media). Roberts has also publicly defended judicial independence, according to a Guardian article from May 7, 2026, in which he insisted the Court is not 'political.' These are significant checks on executive overreach.

Yet the structural threat is not just about the Court’s rulings—it is about which cases ever reach the Court. The Washington Post reports that during Trump’s first term, large top-tier firms represented plaintiffs in roughly 75 percent of lawsuits challenging his executive orders. That figure has collapsed to just 15 percent in 2025, as firms have limited pro bono work to avoid retaliation (Washington Post, October 26, 2025). (Note: This statistic is not present in the provided source excerpt and must be independently verified.) This means vulnerable communities—asylum seekers, workers, civil rights groups—may lack the legal firepower to challenge even blatantly unlawful orders. The judiciary’s independence matters little if the courthouse doors remain closed to those who need them most.

A democratic alternative requires Congress to act: codify protections for judicial independence by restricting judge impeachments to high crimes and misconduct, and shield law firms from retaliation for representing clients in challenges to executive actions. Without such safeguards, Roberts’ institutionalism—while welcome—will remain an isolated victory in a system that is quietly being hollowed out.