Trump COLLAPSES as ALL 9 Supreme Court Justices TURN Against Him

Added: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]Well, we have some breaking news to get to. The Supreme Court has overturned the Colorado decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The decision holds that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause against federal candidates.

[00:00:14]>> How to respect the immunity to >> limiting presidential immunity should also not be a partisan thing at all.

[00:00:20]even though it happens to be about Trump, we're we're discussing but Trump Trump's voters and defenders should understand that we wouldn't want Biden's immunity to be wouldn't want the person holding the office of the executive.

[00:00:34]>> Some breaking news is in and it's quite something. The Supreme Court has decided to overturn the Colorado ruling that sought to keep former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. It turns out only Congress has the authority to enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment against candidates running for federal office. It's interesting how the discussion around presidential immunity is shaping up.

[00:00:56]People really feel strongly about it, especially concerning Trump, but it's essential that his supporters remember that if we're going to talk about immunity, it shouldn't just swing one way. No one would want to see Joe Biden's immunity challenges either. The person in charge should be treated fairly no matter the party. There's a developing story here that we need to tackle honestly. The Supreme Court is handling Trump's robust claims of executive power more often than you might think. And the ideological mix of justices is historically significant >> and and and save up for the next round of the of the battle.

[00:01:30]>> Right. And it's just it's just something so funny about people and and again I'm not saying this is broadly characteristic of the Democrats or the people who having takes because as you point out most are >> chose not to use the primary process to allow voters to weigh in in a direct democracy precisely because they wanted the party to have more control of the convention then I think all of the arguments about the undemocratic nature of the Democratic party certainly do stand.

[00:01:55]>> Very interesting. Well, we will continue to monitor developments related to this and many other [music] issues coming up next. Stay with us.

[00:02:01]>> Then there was a unanimous 9 to nothing decision regarding immigration, insisting on due process before anyone could be deported. And let's not forget the 7 to2 ruling on humanitarian protections, which saw some conservative justices join forces with others to push back against certain actions of the administration. These rulings aren't just legal mumbo jumbo. They have real implications for real people and policies. The fact that a court with six Republicanapp appointed justices, including three of Trump's picks, is still placing constitutional boundaries on some of his policies says a lot about the judicial landscape as it relates to his potential second term. And honestly, there's something ironic about how people react to this news. I'm not saying this is the general attitude of all Democrats or commentators, but it's noticeable that many decided not to use the primary process to let voters express their opinions directly. They seem to want more control over the convention, which holds a whole lot of significance in itself. You know, it's fascinating how the Democratic Party often faces arguments about being undemocratic. Quite the topic, right?

[00:03:09]Anyway, there's something much bigger going on here. The Supreme Court has drawn some clear constitutional lines when it comes to what a president can and can't do. Sometimes they agree unanimously and other times they form cross ideological majorities including Trump's own appointees. That's pretty significant and honestly it's pretty consequential without any need to exaggerate that all nine justices have turned against him. Let's talk about that unanimous ruling on immigration and due process. It's honestly hard to believe they all agreed on something, which is why it's such a crucial example. All nine justices, even the three that Trump appointed, came together to say that people facing deportation must be given due process.

[00:03:52]They need notice and a proper chance to have their say before being removed.

[00:03:57]Imagine that, a 9 to0 decision. This ruling underscores a fundamental constitutional requirement. The government can't just kick people out without giving them a heads up and a real opportunity to contest the removal.

[00:04:11]It's a significant judicial statement about the limits of executive power, showing that these rules hold true no matter who appointed the justices involved. The sheer unonymity of that decision is what makes it stand out. It wasn't even close, like 6 to three or 7 to2. It was an outright 9 to zero. Every single justice was on board with this one. It's interesting to see how the Supreme Court with its 6 to3 conservative liberal split said that the Trump administration's approach to deportation crossed a line when it comes to due process rights. Now, this isn't a court that's just against Trump on every front. Instead, it found a constitutional requirement so clear yet fundamental that all nine justices were on the same page, regardless of their usual leanings. That's right, 9 to zero.

[00:04:58]Each justice agreed that Trump's deportation methods violated due process. This really highlights a specific issue and it stands significant on its own without the added drama suggesting a complete rejection of everything Trump does. Then there's the whole tariff situation which we've talked about before, but it's important to consider this in the bigger picture regarding Trump's relationship with the justices he appointed. In February of 2026, the ruling was six to3 against Trump's broad tariffs on Liberation Day.

[00:05:31]And notably, two of his appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, were in the majority against him. After the ruling, Trump didn't hold back in criticizing them, expecting loyalty, but instead receiving a firm stance based on constitutional principles. What's clear from the trend of rulings like those unanimous decisions and the six to3 verdicts is that they illustrate the judicial independence we often talk about. The court that Trump formed isn't just his, it's the nation's court. This important distinction between a court that adheres to principles no matter who appointed its members and one that delivers predictable political results based on who's in the Oval Office is crucial to understand when considering Trump's second term. Now, let's dive into what these various Supreme Court decisions reveal about the constraints being set around his agenda, especially where he has found some success and what that tells us about those limits. It's clear that there are several important layers to consider when looking at the relationship between the Supreme Court and the presidency right now. Let's dive deeper into the ruling about immigration and due process because it really highlights a significant constitutional principle. The unanimous decision by all nine justices on this matter is worth discussing because it sets a basic constitutional standard for Trump's immigration enforcement strategy, no matter how aggressively the administration might pursue it. Due process is a fundamental requirement in our legal system that mandates the government gives notice and offers a fair chance for someone to respond before taking away their life, liberty, or property. This requirement applies to everyone in the United States. Whether they are citizens or non-citizens, even if the government has the authority to deport someone, they still have to follow due process. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's methods regarding specific deportations didn't provide adequate notice or a proper opportunity for individuals to contest their removal, which clearly stepped over that constitutional line. This was evident enough for all nine justices to agree.

[00:07:38]And that unanimous agreement is telling.

[00:07:41]It shows that when it comes to the question of whether the government can remove individuals without due process, there's no ideological split among the justices, they're all on the same page, which speaks volumes about the clarity of this constitutional standard. They have firmly established that the administration crossed a bright line.

[00:08:00]And this consensus highlights not so much a united front against Trump's immigration agenda, but rather a shared understanding of how that agenda can be legally executed. Now, shifting gears a bit, let's look at the ruling regarding humanitarian protections where we see a cross ideological majority. This included some conservative justices who alongside their liberal counterparts came together showcasing yet another layer of complexity in how the court interacts with these pressing issues.

[00:08:31]The fact that three liberal justices sided against certain actions taken by the Trump administration is pretty telling. It highlights that there are specific types of presidential conduct that are facing push back from judges across the board regardless of their usual ideological leanings. When it comes to the case of ARP versus Trump, the ruling was 7 to2, which indicates that even conservative justices who generally don't oppose Trump's agenda found the administration's actions legally weak. It's quite interesting that unlike the usual political division one might expect, this court is evaluating these cases on an individual basis based on legal principles. Sure, a 7 to2 ruling isn't the same as a 9 to nothing decision, but it's still a lot more bipartisan than one might assume given the political makeup of the court.

[00:09:22]This tendency was also seen in the tariff ruling and others involving the Trump administration. These decisions show a judicial approach that applies constitutional and legal principles in a manner that transcends mere political preferences, which occasionally curtails Trump's more aggressive policy moves.

[00:09:40]This isn't a situation where all nine justices have turned against him.

[00:09:44]Rather, there are particular actions he's taken that have clearly crossed legal lines, leading to wider agreement among the justices. And while we're on the topic, it's also important to look at the cases where Trump has actually come out on top. Understanding his relationship with the court during a potential second term means recognizing both his wins and losses and figuring out what the wins say about the evolving constitutional landscape. He's had some significant victories at the Supreme Court, like the ruling in Trump versus the United States, which gave him broad criminal immunity for his official acts, a gamecher for his legal battles. Plus, the court signaled its support for his power to fire leaders of independent agencies, reinforcing presidential control in a way that fits his governing philosophy. There have even been several rulings backing his executive power over regulatory agencies, which certainly reflects his administration's stance on governance. It's interesting how the administration has had quite a bit of room to reshape federal regulations.

[00:10:49]With more than 30 applications on the emergency docket and a high approval rate, the court has actually been a helpful ally for the administration, at least when it comes to the more contentious policies as they wind their way through the system. These victories aren't just small wins. They're substantial and show that the court isn't entirely against Trump's claims to power or his agenda. When we consider these successes alongside the losses like the tariffs, the immigration due process ruling and the humanitarian protections case, it paints a more nuanced picture. We see a court that's making specific constitutional decisions rather than one that has turned its back on Trump altogether. Now, let's unpack what Trump's public criticism of his own appointees following the tariff ruling tells us about his misunderstanding of judicial independence, which is pretty important when looking at the narrative that all nine justices are against him.

[00:11:42]After Gorsuch and Barrett sided with the majority to strike down his tariff program, Trump went after them publicly.

[00:11:49]It really highlights how he expected personal loyalty, thinking that the judges he appointed should deliver decisions that aligned with his agenda as a sort of political payoff for their appointments. But that expectation is quite misinformed. Judges aren't supposed to hand down politically motivated outcomes just because a president appointed them. Their job is to interpret the law and the constitution based on the cases they see. Putting aside any political preferences of the person who gave them their positions. The fact that Gorsuch and Barrett applied a conservative legal principle to knock down Trump's tariff program isn't a betrayal. It's them doing their job. Trump's backlash against them for just fulfilling their roles shows a genuine confusion between what being politically loyal means and what judicial independence truly is.

[00:12:37]This point is worth examining since it gives insight into how he interacts with the very institutions he leads. The narrative that all nine justices have turned against him only adds to that confusion, framing judicial independence as a form of hostility and treating the court's principled approach to constitutional law as a unified front against him. When we look at the recent decisions coming from the Supreme Court, it's clear that they're drawing some specific lines regarding executive power rather than just pushing back against Trump on a political level. For instance, it seems they won't allow emergency tariff authority without Congress giving the green light, but they're okay with offering presidential immunity for actions taken while in office. It's interesting to see that on the issue of due process for deportations, the court is willing to enforce their standards unanimously.

[00:13:29]While they give some leeway on the authority of agency heads, each of these rulings reflects the application of solid constitutional principles rather than a blanket political judgment on Trump. So, what we're really seeing here is a constitutional map being laid out through these rulings. One that shows what the court is willing to protect and what it's ready to limit during Trump's second term. This isn't about all nine justices turning against him, nor is it a free pass for everything he wants to do. Now, let's talk about the idea of Trump supposedly collapsing because of these court decisions. It's important to think about what collapse really means.

[00:14:07]For a president to collapse, that would imply the end of their authority to govern. Think resignation or a total defeat of all their major initiatives.

[00:14:16]None of that has happened. Sure, one of his tariff programs got struck down, but he quickly moved to find alternative legal options. And when it came to deportations, although it had to follow due process requirements, the administration pressed on with those deportations within the new guidelines.

[00:14:33]In short, the mixed bag of results from the Supreme Court doesn't really support the idea of Trump collapsing under their rulings. The Supreme Court recently delivered a ruling by a unanimous 9 to0 vote which has significant implications for Trump's policies on immigration enforcement. This ruling sets a clear constitutional floor regarding due process, indicating that some rules cannot be bent no matter who is in charge. It's pretty telling when all nine justices, including the six appointed by Republican presidents and Trump's own three nominees, agree on this point. Due process is a crucial part of our legal system and it applies to everyone regardless of their immigration status or what the government thinks it can do. When Trump's approach to deportations overstepped this due process boundary, it became clear to the justices that certain constitutional limits simply cannot be ignored. So, while the ruling might superficially seem like a blow to Trump's presidency, it's actually a nuanced situation. It doesn't mean all nine justices are against him. Rather, it's about the specifics of due process before deportation that are so clear-cut that they manage to unite judges from all parts of the ideological spectrum.

[00:15:51]This kind of agreement signals that certain fundamental rights are non-negotiable, steering the administration back toward a more constitutionally sound approach, even in the face of creative legal strategies in response to these constraints. The relationship between the Supreme Court and Trump's administration isn't a collapse, but more of a push and pull.

[00:16:11]The court imposes limits and Trump seeks alternative paths. It's not the end of his agenda. Instead, it forces him to adapt within the framework provided by the justices, which is really quite the dynamic. So to sum things up, these three crucial points about the court's ruling help clarify how they interact with Trump's presidency and the broader implications for governance. So let's break down what's been happening with the Supreme Court and Trump. It's not all bad news or all good news. It's a mixed bag. The court is making decisions that are based on specific legal principles. When Trump's claims fit within the protections outlined by the Constitution, the court backs him up.

[00:16:53]But when those claims go beyond what the law actually allows, the court steps in and puts limits on them. This approach results in both wins and losses for Trump, revealing that the court isn't simply against him across the board.

[00:17:06]Instead, they're drawing specific lines based on constitutional standards. So, the idea that all nine justices have turned against him is a bit of an oversimplification.

[00:17:16]It doesn't reflect the nuanced reality of individual cases that have come before them. Now, on to the next point about Trump's view of loyalty from his appointees. When he got upset with justices Gorsuch and Barrett for voting against his tariff program, it highlights a misunderstanding of how the judicial system is meant to work. Judges are supposed to apply the law and the constitution, not just do what the president wants. So, when Gorsuch and Barrett ruled against Trump, they were just fulfilling their roles. And remember when the whole court decided that due process was necessary in deportation cases, all nine justices were acting according to their responsibilities, not staging a political rebellion. Trump's narrative that they turned against him misrepresents this normal function of an independent judiciary. His reactions show a confusion about what judicial independence really means. he sees their decisions as disloyal when in fact they're just doing their jobs based on legal principles. So to wrap it up, the court isn't against Trump. They're faithfully applying the Constitution and that's led to a mix of outcomes. It's interesting to see how the Supreme Court has been handling things lately. Instead of a total collapse like some people might say, what we're really witnessing is constitutional democracy doing its job. Right now, all nine justices are on the same page, agreeing that Trump's administration has to ensure due process before deporting anyone. That's a unanimous ruling, which is pretty significant. Back in February 2026, six justices, including two that Trump himself appointed, Gorsuch and Barrett, decided to shoot down his sweeping tariff program. It wasn't just a narrow decision. Seven justices came together from different ideological backgrounds to limit certain humanitarian protections as well. Interestingly, Trump didn't take that ruling lightly.

[00:19:13]He openly criticized his own appointees over it. Yet, the court has also recognized his immunity for actions taken officially, supported his authority to fire heads of agencies, and kept a generally high acceptance rate for emergency policy requests from the administration. This mixed bag of wins and losses highlights how the court is applying constitutional principles to each case instead of making a sweeping political judgment against Trump's presidency. So when people say all nine justices have turned against Trump, it really oversimplifies what's actually going on. No single ruling has brought his presidency to an