The Supreme Court has postponed a showdown with Trump — but history suggests it’s coming

WASHINGTON — For now, the relationship between President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court remains relatively calm. That calm may not last.

In 2025, the court’s 6–3 conservative majority largely sidestepped direct clashes with Trump, frequently granting his administration emergency relief and short-term wins. But instead of resolving some of the most controversial issues coming out of the White House, the justices pushed final decisions into 2026 — a move that could set the stage for serious conflict.

This year, the court is expected to rule on three high-stakes matters: Trump’s effort to limit automatic birthright citizenship, his sweeping tariff regime, and his attempt to remove a sitting member of the Federal Reserve’s board. In each case, the justices could have acted sooner. Instead, they chose delay — a familiar tactic in Supreme Court history.

“The court is not confronting the president head-on until spring,” said NYU law professor Richard Pildes. “That timing matters because his political strength may not be the same.”

Trump began his second term with relatively strong approval ratings, but public support has steadily eroded. A December NBC News poll found just 42% approving of his job performance, while 58% disapproved. As that support slips, the court appears increasingly willing to issue definitive rulings — not temporary orders that merely allow policies to move forward while lawsuits continue.

Last year, the justices repeatedly granted Trump emergency requests after lower courts blocked his policies, drawing criticism from some judges. While Trump has aggressively attacked those lower courts, he has mostly avoided criticizing the Supreme Court — even after losses, including a ruling that stopped him from deploying the National Guard in Chicago.

That restraint may soon be tested.

Historically, the court has often waited to rule against presidents until they are later in their terms and politically weaker. In 1952, it struck down President Harry Truman’s seizure of steel mills. In 1974, it ordered President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes — a decision that hastened his resignation. Similar late-term defeats followed for George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and the current court frequently ruled against President Joe Biden on executive power.

“It’s not that the court won’t rule against a popular president,” said Barbara Perry of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “But it may feel on firmer ground doing so when that president is unpopular.”

The court’s caution reflects a deeper concern: it lacks enforcement power and depends on public legitimacy and executive compliance. Lower court judges have already accused the Trump administration of ignoring court orders, heightening the stakes.

As Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith has noted, the court has long acted to “maximize its authority” despite having “neither sword nor purse.”

That helps explain why the justices have repeatedly kicked conflicts down the road. On birthright citizenship, the court last spring ruled narrowly on procedural grounds, allowing Trump a symbolic win while avoiding the core constitutional question. Only in December did it agree to hear the case on the merits, with a ruling expected just months before the midterms.

The same pattern played out with Trump’s tariffs and his bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook — delays that leave existing blocks in place while postponing final judgment.

The court may still side with Trump on some or all of these cases. But by slowing the clock, it has ensured that if major defeats come, they will arrive at a moment when the president’s political power — and patience — may be running thin.

As Washington University law professor Daniel Epps put it: “Kicking the can down the road helps the court. And it probably helps those hoping the court ultimately rules against Trump.”