Vance says Chief Justice "wrong" on judiciary's role in checking executive branch
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters on board Air Force Two at Leonardo da Vinci International Airport on May 19 in Rome, Italy. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin - Pool/Getty Images
Vice President JD Vance characterized Chief Justice John Roberts' recent statement that the judiciary can "check the excesses" of the executive as a "profoundly wrong sentiment" in a New York Times interview published Wednesday.
Why it matters: His comments add to the heaps of criticism the administration has levied against the judiciary as district court judges have issued injunctions and orders to halt some of the president's sweeping federal actions.
- Roberts, in a rare statement in March, rebuked GOP calls to impeach a federal judge who ordered deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to turn around.
- And earlier this month, he defended the courts' independence before a New York audience, saying the job of the judiciary is to "obviously decide cases but in the course of that to check the excesses of Congress or the executive."
Driving the news: "I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive," Vance said on the NYT's "Interesting Times" podcast. "I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment."
- To Vance, checking the power of the executive is "one-half of" Roberts' job.
- "The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch," the vice president said.
- "You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for," he continued.
What he's saying: Vance said the courts were making an effort to "quite literally overturn the will of the American people."
- However, he noted, "it's not most courts," before offering his critique of Roberts' comments.
Context: Federal courts have blocked Trump's orders at a particularly high rate.
- And since the beginning of the Obama administration, Axios' Sam Baker reports, there has been a rise in judges ordering nationwide injunctions.
- But blatantly defying orders — even if they go against what a president says his supporters voted for — would undermine the nation's system of checks and balances. Critics say that's already happening in some cases.
Catch up quick: Vance has previously advocated for the power of the executive branch if legal hurdles from the judiciary stand in the way of exercising presidential authority.
- In February, he wrote that "[j]udges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
The bottom line: It is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the law — and, when necessary, declare it unconstitutional if it poses a violation.
- Judicial review, established in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, allows the court to determine a legislative or executive act in violation of the Constitution.
What's next: Vance told the Times' Ross Douthat that the administration would "keep working it through the immigration court process, through the Supreme Court as much as possible."
- The high court last week heard oral arguments on whether to let Trump proceed with a plan to redefine birthright citizenship — a case that could also have implications for lower courts' abilities to freeze federal policy.
- The Supreme Court's decision is expected by late June.
