John Roberts Touts Judicial Independence, Subtly Rebukes Trump in ‘Year End Report’ on Federal Courts

Among his duties as chief justice of the United States, John Roberts is responsible for putting together an annual “Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” This report sometimes amounts to a rather boring document, focused mostly on outlining the overall workings of the judicial branch.

Other times, the chief justice adds a little spice to the mix by referring or alluding to the legal controversies that actually comprise the most engaging parts of the judiciary’s work. In preparing his 2025 report, which came out last week, Roberts went a little spicy.

Roberts’ report opens with a long ode to the connection between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Here is a passage from that ode that jumped right out at me:

The connection between these two foundational documents could not be clearer when it comes to the judicial branch. The Declaration charged that George III “has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The Constitution corrected this flaw, granting life tenure and salary protection to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well.

Roberts does not mention President Donald Trump by name in his 2025 report on the judiciary. Nevertheless, the words quoted above may be understood as a subtle rebuke of Trump, who spent much of the last year attacking the independence of the courts, such as by calling for the impeachment of federal judges whose rulings Trump did not like.

Notice also how Roberts describes the judiciary’s role in our constitutional system: “a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches.” Trump and his allies, of course, have spent much of the last year denouncing the unelected courts for thwarting the will of the voters who elected Trump.

Yet as Roberts correctly implies, the will of the voters does not always align with the requirements of the Constitution. In a case in which the president has acted unlawfully, it does not matter if a majority of the voters happen to approve of the president’s illegal actions. What matters is holding the president to account under the Constitution. And for the courts, that means acting as “a counter-majoritarian check” on the president, even when (or especially when) the president’s illegal actions enjoy popular support.

It is perhaps also notable that Roberts did not revert here to some version of his familiar line likening judges to innocuous umpires whose only job is calling “balls and strikes.” Instead, Roberts describes the courts in more forceful terms, as a check on the other branches. And with Congress effectively AWOL nowadays, the only branch left to check is the executive.

The impending Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources v. Trump may serve to illustrate the point. The constitutional authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” as well as the authority “to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations,” all reside exclusively in the hands of Congress per Article I of the Constitution. Yet Trump has claimed the authority to impose tariffs at will without receiving any clear authorization from Congress.

I have heard Trump’s tariffs defended on the grounds that Trump was elected with a mandate to wield exactly this kind of unilateral executive control over the economy. And perhaps that is why some folks voted for Trump. But majoritarian support for a president’s agenda does not equal constitutional support for a president’s agenda.

In the tariffs case, the Supreme Court has the perfect opportunity to play its proper constitutional role by serving as a counter-majoritarian check on the president. We’ll find out soon enough whether the Court’s decision actually comports with Roberts’ words.