Vice President JD Vance delivered a forceful critique of Chief Justice John Roberts this week, accusing the Supreme Court’s top jurist of ignoring the unchecked power of lower federal courts to obstruct immigration policy backed by President Donald Trump. In an appearance on Interesting Times with Ross Douthat, Vance outlined what he sees as a fundamental imbalance in how the judiciary interprets its role—particularly when it comes to upholding the will of the electorate on issues like border security.
Vance zeroed in on Roberts’ recent comments that the judiciary’s primary role is to “check the excesses of the executive,” calling that perspective “profoundly wrong.” According to Vance, this narrow view ignores a critical—and increasingly urgent—responsibility: policing the judiciary itself, particularly the lower courts whose repeated interventions have slowed or blocked key immigration policies.
“The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch,” Vance argued. “You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for.”
Vance’s frustration speaks to a deeper conflict playing out between the Trump administration and the judicial system—a conflict not only about policy outcomes but about constitutional roles and democratic legitimacy.
This isn’t an abstract concern. As Vance pointed out, lower courts have repeatedly intervened in Trump’s immigration agenda, including a major decision this past April when the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA). The ruling gave those facing removal the right to challenge their deportation in court, effectively pausing a core component of Trump’s effort to crack down on criminal alien networks.
In Vance’s view, these decisions are more than legal roadblocks—they’re democratic derailments. “We have to go through the courts to achieve what the people have voted for multiple times,” he said. “That’s not just frustrating. It’s unsustainable.”
Beyond the court criticism, Vance articulated a broader vision for what a successful immigration policy should look like under a second Trump term. It’s not just about increasing deportations—it’s about institutionalizing legal infrastructure and establishing judicially acceptable principles that endure beyond individual cases or executive orders.
“Success to me is that we have established a set of rules and principles that the courts are comfortable with,” Vance explained, “and that we have the infrastructure to deport large numbers of illegal aliens when large numbers come in.”
His framing is a subtle shift from short-term enforcement to long-term institutional reform, though it still hinges heavily on resolving tensions with the judiciary—a task Vance made clear is far from over.
