Staff Reports
David Brooks turned heads this week on PBS NewsHour when he said the Supreme Court “hates to take on a sitting president” and pointed to Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act as proof the Court often avoids upsetting big political outcomes. The comment landed like a dinner-party confession — neat, provocative, and begging for a reality check. Brooks’ line is worth parsing, because the Court’s recent term shows a mixed pattern, not a simple rule of deference to President Donald Trump or any president.
What David Brooks actually said on PBS NewsHour
On air with host Amna Nawaz, David Brooks argued that the Roberts Court has a habit of avoiding fights with sitting presidents and large Democratic or Republican policy wins. He cited NFIB v. Sebelius — the 2012 decision that saved key parts of Obamacare — as an example of the Court choosing institutional calm over dramatic upheaval. Brooks’ point was that the Court sometimes bends away from bold rulings that would overturn major democratic choices. It’s a tidy sound bite, and it sounds smart if you don’t look too closely.
The Supreme Court’s mixed record this term
Reality is messier than that sound bite. This term the Court both checked and empowered the presidency. It struck down the administration’s tariff program under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — a clear rebuke of broad economic moves labeled as emergency powers. It also rejected President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, saying the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause still matters. At the same time, the Court rolled back some long-standing protections for independent agencies, expanding presidential removal power — though it left intact a narrow protection for the Federal Reserve in the litigation over Governor Lisa Cook. In short: some presidential moves were slapped down; some were given more room to operate.
Brooks’ claim holds a grain of truth — but don’t let it be an excuse
Yes, the Court can be cautious about overturning sweeping political choices. Chief Justice John Roberts’ ACA opinion is a textbook example of courtly restraint. But seeing that restraint as a blanket rule lets presidents off the hook. The Court happily rebuked tariff overreach and the birthright citizenship executive order. And conservative victories on curbing agency protections show the justices are not uniformly protecting the political left or the status quo. If Brooks means the Court fears political backlash, he’s partly right. If he means the Court is always soft on presidential power, he’s wrong — and conveniently so.
Why conservatives should care and what to watch next
For Republicans and conservatives who want a stronger limited-government approach, the takeaway is simple: don’t rely on pundits to predict judicial behavior. Watch actual opinions, nominations, and legal fights. Celebrate the wins — like limiting agency overreach — and learn from the losses, like the tariffs and birthright rulings that constrained the White House. The Court will keep issuing mixed results. Your job as a voter and activist is to shape the courts, not to complain about pundits who oversimplify what the justices actually do. In the meantime, keep an eye on how the Roberts Court balances institutional caution with the rule of law — and don’t let a catchy line substitute for watching the docket.
