I think that we can all agree that our democracy would be at an end if a president were to defy the Supreme Court. Has it ever happened? I asked ChatGPT. Here are some snippets:
In the early 1930s, FDR removed the U.S. from the gold standard and invalidated gold clauses in both public and private contracts. These clauses had allowed creditors to demand payment in gold, insulating them from inflation.
The Supreme Court heard several consolidated cases, the most famous being Perry v. United States, which challenged the government’s abrogation of gold clauses in government bonds.
There was press speculation that FDR might defy the Court if it ruled against him, especially since the stakes were so high for the administration’s economic agenda.
In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the government’s position, essentially avoiding a constitutional crisis.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion in Perry v. United States, holding that while the government’s action was technically unconstitutional, the plaintiff had not suffered a legally redressable loss.
Yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt did prepare a contingency speech in the event that the Supreme Court ruled against him in the 1935 gold clause cases, particularly Perry v. United States.
The speech was drafted in anticipation of the Supreme Court potentially striking down his policies on invalidating gold clauses.
In this prepared address, FDR was ready to assure the public that he would not allow the economic system to collapse, even if it meant ignoring the Court’s ruling. The draft included language that strongly implied he would defy the decision.
According to historical sources, including William Leuchtenburg’s writings and Henry Morgenthau’s diaries, the speech essentially framed any contrary Court ruling as a threat to national survival, and FDR positioned himself as the defender of the people’s economic security over rigid constitutional formalism.
Here’s a paraphrase of the key idea from that draft speech:
If the Supreme Court were to rule that the government must repay debts in gold, then the administration would have no choice but to protect the nation’s economy by refusing to comply—suggesting a potential constitutional crisis.
Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR’s Treasury Secretary, kept detailed diaries. In entries from January 1935, he discusses FDR’s draft speech and concerns about the Supreme Court decision. These diaries are held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and are available digitally. Look for entries in January–February 1935 regarding the gold clause litigation.
Secondary source: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg:
“[FDR] had even prepared a radio address for the evening of the day the Supreme Court ruled, asserting that the government would defy the Court if it invalidated the gold policy. But the Court, by a narrow margin, spared him the necessity.”
I believe that Nixon’s team also considered defying the Supreme Court while claiming executive privilege to withhold the Watergate tapes. See: https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/10/archives/st-clair-denies-knowing-if-nixon-woulddefy-court-lawyer-asserts.html.
Redeemed an I bond today. Sometimes wish the government would repay us in something worth more than canuckistan kopeks.
Phil — A more accurate headline would be “FDR considered defying the U.S. Supreme if it ruled against him.” If A has evil thoughts about killing B, but does nothing, A is guilty of nothing. Both Nixon and Clinton (Clinton v. Jones) obeyed Supreme Court orders.
The Trump administration is different. It is clearly playing games on two migrant cases. In one, they claim they cannot get Garcia back, even though the government is paying El Salvador $6 million to house the migrants on what is in effect a bailment agreement. If you really think Bukele would not return Garcia if Trump insisted, I have a bridge you may want to purchase.
We now have a lawless President with a lawless Attorney General. In his Cabinet meetings, Trump puts Kim Jong Un to shame as his cabinet devotes much of its speaking time praising our dear leader. It’s embarassing to watch.
More than anything, what is preventing our country from further harm are our Article III judges, 99 percent of are incredibly intelligent and are doing their job. My most recent favorite is Judge Fernando Rodriguez (appointed by Trump during Trump’s first term), who ruled the Trump’s invocation of the AEA exceeded the scope of the statute. See:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf
Normally the judiciary gives lawyers representing the federal government a lot of latitude because historically such attorneys have not played games with federal judges and have been straight shooters. Since January so many misrepresentations have been made so many times that federal judges are understandably skeptical of many of the factual statements made by the administration’s attorneys. See:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-has-a-trust-problem-in-court-a5d19328?st=J7Z9tc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Even the Supreme Court, with six “conservative” (the way most people use those labels is often misleading) justices, is getting fed up with Trump, particularly his repeated emergency requests. In A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court issued their decision around 1 am, without waiting to hear opposition pleadings, even though the administration has represented to the trial court that they would not deport the migrants for at least two days. The ACLU filed its application at 12:34 am on April 18. The only rational reason for the Supreme Court issuing its stay in 24 hours is that a majority of the justices simply did not believe the administration.
In terms of the Supreme Court slowing down Trump’s stated goal to becoming a dictator, only two justices are completely hopeless. Alito is simply a partisian hack, while Thomas is more accurate described as a nutjob (he wants to eliminate substantive due process). Along with the liberal liberal justices, Roberts and Barrett are our best hopes. Gorsuch will in some cases vote to save our country as he has libertarian tendacies and has written a book that we have far too many laws:
https://www.amazon.com/Over-Ruled-Human-Toll-Much/dp/0063238470
The framers were geniuses in establishing separation of powers. Congress is complete useless. I would call the Republican Congress spineless jellyfish but that is unfair to the jellyfish.
In addition to being an inspiring dictator, Trump is simply a moron. His tariffs (which the WSJ called the “dumbest trade war in history”) will cause our country enough economic harm that the Republicans are certain to lose control of the House next November, and possibly the Senate.
Control please flag James Mitchell for central processing.
I think one of the issues with Trump is he is a poor communicator – so for example he has never really explained his tariff thing, etc. and other policies that may be defensible – he is good on name calling and insults but his communication skills seem limited. His vocabulary seems limited and he tends to talk to the public in gross overstatement as if he is selling real estate in NYC. Presidents who instituted sweeping changes, FDR, Reagan, had the ability to talk directly to the American people to persuade them. Re Trump, you are either with him or not. He does not put a lot of effort into trying to persuade the public that he is right. On the other hand, he has a lot of experience flogging products to average Joes so maybe his view is that a lot of explaining does not get you anywhere, that overstatement and bombast are the best approach.