What the Roberts Court Is Actually Trying to Accomplish
The Atlantic
February 23, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
The Roberts Court has demonstrated through its decisions, such as striking down President Trump’s tariffs, that it operates independently of partisan influences rather than serving as a tool for Republican or Trump interests. Contrary to the misconception that the court functions in lockstep with conservative ideology, recent data shows significant divisions among justices, with only 10 out of 67 cases decided by a 6-3 margin last term. This highlights that the court’s liberal and conservative justices often disagree but also collaborate on certain rulings, as seen in high-profile cases like those involving religious liberty and gun liability.
The court's broader goal appears to be reining in presidential overreach, making the executive branch more accountable. This is evident in decisions regarding Trump’s tariffs and Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan, both of which questioned whether a president can act without clear congressional authorization. The court has consistently limited executive power, as seen in rulings on vaccine mandates and tax records, indicating a sustained effort to curtail the presidency's authority.
This matters because it underscores a shift toward greater political accountability for the president. While some may view the court’s actions as partisan, they reflect an objective effort to balance federal powers. This dynamic is crucial for readers interested in politics, as it shapes debates on governance and the separation of powers, challenging narratives about the court's role in enabling presidential agendas.
Verticals
politicsculture
Originally published on The Atlantic on 2/23/2026