The chamber was heavy with ceremony, but the tension was unmistakable.
When President Donald Trump stepped into the House floor to deliver his State of the Union address, he found himself only a few feet away from members of the very court that had just derailed one of his signature trade policies. Days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his sweeping tariffs in a 6–3 decision, ruling that he had overstepped by invoking emergency powers to bypass Congress.
Now, some of those justices were seated before him, clad in black robes, faces carefully neutral.
Chief Justice John Roberts was there. So were Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Elena Kagan. As is customary, they sat still, unsmiling, as applause thundered around them. Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s own appointees and a member of the majority that blocked the tariffs, was absent.
Trump did not let the ruling pass quietly. During his address, he called the decision “very unfortunate” and “disappointing,” signaling that the fight over trade authority is far from over. He insisted his administration would pursue alternative statutory paths to impose similar measures, arguing that older, more complex trade laws could prove even more effective.
The ruling itself marked a rare fracture among conservatives. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined the court’s three liberal members in concluding that the president had exceeded his authority under a statute intended for national emergencies. The judgment was a significant check on executive power—one delivered by a court reshaped during Trump’s first term.
In the days following the decision, Trump lashed out at the majority, reserving especially sharp criticism for Gorsuch and Barrett. He praised Kavanaugh, who sided with him, underscoring the increasingly visible ideological crosscurrents inside a court often perceived as predictably divided.
The visual of justices attending the State of the Union has long been a study in constitutional choreography. They are guests of a coequal branch, yet required by tradition to sit silently through partisan volleys. Roberts has publicly questioned the optics before, suggesting the event can resemble a political rally more than a constitutional address.
His unease is not new. The tension between the White House and the bench has flared in past years as well. In 2010, then-President Barack Obama used his address to criticize a Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance. Justice Samuel Alito, visibly displeased, appeared to mouth a rebuttal from his seat—an unusual break from judicial restraint. He has largely avoided the event since.
Other justices have skipped the ritual altogether. The late Antonin Scalia once dismissed the spectacle as juvenile. And in 2024, President Joe Biden turned his gaze toward the bench while admonishing the court over its rollback of abortion rights, underscoring how the address has increasingly become a forum for interbranch sparring.
This year’s encounter between Trump and the justices felt especially pointed. In a previous address, he clasped Roberts’ hand in a gesture of gratitude following a court opinion that granted broad immunity to presidents for official acts. This time, the handshake carried different weight—less camaraderie, more constitutional friction.
The justices, bound by protocol, offered no reaction as the president pressed ahead. In a hall filled with cheers and jeers, their silence spoke volumes.
