Throughout the turbulent history of American democracy, the Supreme Court has consistently served as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the balance of powers. But today, this institution faces an unprecedented challenge: confronting a president who seems to reject legal constraints altogether. A recent Supreme Court ruling highlights this tension—a decision that obligates the government to return an unlawfully deported individual from El Salvador. This case is not just about immigration; it is a test of judicial independence and the future of the rule of law in the United States.
Since its establishment in 1789, the U.S. Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and preventing abuses of power. According to the Federal Judicial Center, the Court has struck down over 150 laws or executive actions as unconstitutional since the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. This record reflects the Court’s importance as an independent institution that withstands political pressure. But the recent case of Kilmar Abrego García, who was mistakenly deported, presents a new test. In a unanimous decision, the Court ordered the government to facilitate his return. This ruling not only underscores the principle of individual justice but also the government’s duty to obey judicial authority.
During his presidency, Donald Trump repeatedly displayed disregard for legal and judicial limits. According to the Brookings Institution, his administration defied or attempted to bypass federal court rulings more than 80 times, particularly in the area of immigration. For instance, the 2020 “Remain in Mexico” policy, criticized by the Supreme Court, violated the rights of over 60,000 asylum seekers. Defying the Court’s most recent ruling would be even more extreme—not merely the rejection of a specific decision, but a broader challenge to the legitimacy of the judicial system itself.
This threat is not limited to immigrants. A 2024 Amnesty International report notes that deportation policies without due process in the U.S. have endangered even citizens’ rights. If the government can ignore court rulings, no one is truly safe from rights violations. This is particularly alarming when, according to a 2024 Gallup poll, 62% of Americans believe public trust in the judiciary has declined. Such erosion opens the door for authoritarians to consolidate power by weakening independent institutions.
Ignoring Supreme Court rulings carries grave legal, political, and social consequences. Pew Research Center analysis shows that since 2016, political polarization in the U.S. has reached its highest point in 50 years. In such an environment, Trump supporters might interpret defiance of the Court as a display of strength, while opponents view it as a step toward democratic collapse. This polarization could fuel social unrest. In 2022, for example, after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case (which overturned abortion rights), protests erupted in 40 states, resulting in over 1,200 arrests.
Furthermore, defiance of the Court could impact U.S. international relations. El Salvador, García’s country of deportation, has experienced growing tensions with the U.S. over immigration issues. According to the United Nations, over 15,000 Salvadorans applied for asylum in the U.S. in 2024. Ignoring the Court’s decision could erode international trust in the U.S. legal system and undermine regional cooperation.
To prevent such a crisis, strengthening judicial independence is essential. First, Congress should enact clearer laws to prevent the executive from bypassing court orders. Second, the media and civil society must play a more active role in public education. According to CNN, only 35% of Americans in 2024 were familiar with the Supreme Court’s role in safeguarding democracy. Public education can help close this gap. Third, the Court itself must issue firm and united rulings to send a clear message: defiance is unacceptable.
The U.S. Supreme Court stands at a critical juncture in its history. The case of Kilmar Abrego García is just one example of a broader struggle between the rule of law and authoritarian tendencies. If the government refuses to enforce court decisions, not only the Court’s independence but the very structure of American democracy is at risk. Data suggests that declining public trust, political polarization, and rights violations are warning signs for the future. Yet, with stronger institutions, an informed public, and a renewed commitment to legal enforcement, this crisis can still be averted. Now is the time for all Americans—from ordinary citizens to senior officials—to recognize the importance of defending the rule of law and to resist any attempt to undermine it.
