Image Credit: Ian Hutchinson (Unsplash)
There was a time when noncompliance with the U.S. Supreme Court felt like a thought experiment for the fringes, a rebellious what-if for law school hypotheticals or for history buffs fixated on Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal sneer at John Marshall. Today, that what-if is closer to a political blueprint. The quiet assumption that Supreme Court rulings must be obeyed, not because federal marshals arrive at the White House with handcuffs, but because disobedience triggers political extinction, is crumbling. What happens when a president, a governor, or an entire political party decides the Court can be safely ignored? The answer to that question is no longer theoretical as current developments give proof.
The Supreme Court’s Authority and Legal Obligations
Judicial supremacy — the idea that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is the final word — has always been a delicate fiction sustained by shared belief. The Court’s authority rests not on armies or money but on the acceptance, even by those who lose cases, that the Court speaks for the Constitution itself. This understanding took hold slowly, through cases like Marbury v. Madison, when in 1803 for the first time the Supreme Court declared a law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, as unconstitutional. This laid down the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to strike down laws that violate the Constitution But even then, this understanding relied on presidents and legislators deciding it was politically safer to comply than resist. In moments of extreme stress, the forced desegregation of public schools after Brown v. Board of Education, for example, the illusion was briefly exposed. The tanks Eisenhower sent to Little Rock were not just enforcing integration of black students; they were enforcing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.
Article III of the Constitution is elegantly vague. It creates a judiciary, vests it with “judicial power,” and leaves much else unsaid. In Marbury v. Madison, the Court asserted the right to interpret the Constitution, and ever since, its legitimacy has rested precariously on the willingness of presidents and Congress to respect that claim. Judicial review is powerful in theory but defenseless in practice. The Court issues opinions, not arrest warrants. It has no enforcement arm, no practical ability to compel action. Its rulings live or die based on the political cost of defying them.
Legislative Noncompliance: When Lawmakers Turn Their Backs
Legislative defiance of Supreme Court rulings is as old as Reconstruction and as modern as immigration fights at the border. Congress, state legislatures, and governors have sometimes slow-walked compliance, rewriting laws to test the edges of rulings, undermining enforcement through budget cuts or legal loopholes, or, as with southern segregationists after Brown, openly resisting with creative legal maneuvers.
What matters now is the subtle shift in posture: what used to be furtive defiance is becoming proud defiance. When Texas Governor Greg Abbott suggested ignoring a Supreme Court order to dismantle border razor wire in 2024, it was not the quiet maneuvering of past resisters; it was a dare. In today’s fractured political environment, defiance of the Court isn’t a political liability — it’s a badge of honor.
The consequences are seismic. Separation of powers presumes each branch defends its own turf, but also that no branch openly declares itself free of the others. When the legislative branch flirts with nullification, it pulls the entire system closer to rupture, weakening an established delicately balanced system of power.
Executive Defiance: The Jacksonian Temptation
Presidents have historically respected Supreme Court rulings, even when they loathed them. Richard Nixon surrendered to the Watergate tapes. George W. Bush accepted defeat over Guantanamo detainees’ habeas rights. Each of these moments reinforced the fragile spell: presidents can push, can grumble, but cannot outright defy the Court and will always remain within constitutional bounds.
Andrew Jackson’s infamous (and likely mythical) response to Worcester v. Georgia, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”, was long treated as an anomaly, but its underlying implications reveal deep tensions in American constitutional history. Georgia v. Worcester (1832) was a significant Supreme Court case involving Samuel Worcester, a missionary living in Cherokee territory who was arrested by the state of Georgia for residing there without a state permit. The case, decided in 1832, was a landmark ruling in which Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed that Native American nations, specifically the Cherokee Nation, were sovereign entities and that the state of Georgia had no legal authority to impose its laws on Cherokee lands. The ruling was a direct rebuke to Georgia’s aggressive efforts to remove Native Americans from their ancestral lands, which were being seized by white settlers under state authority.
Image Credit: Markus.Volodymyr (Wikimedia Commons)
Despite the Court’s decision, President Andrew Jackson, a staunch proponent of Indian removal, made no effort to enforce the ruling. Instead, Georgia openly defied the Court, continuing its policies against the Cherokee people. The Supreme Court lacked the means to compel the state or the federal government to comply with its decisions without executive support. The practical result of this defiance was devastating. With no federal intervention to uphold the ruling, Georgia accelerated its efforts to remove the Cherokee, culminating in the forced displacement known as the Trail of Tears. Under the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Jackson had already set in motion the mass relocation of Native Americans from the Southeastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River. The federal government, under Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren, eventually deployed U.S. troops, not to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling, but to forcibly evict the Cherokee, resulting in thousands of deaths from exposure, disease, and starvation.
This episode remains one of the most glaring examples of the Supreme Court’s reliance on executive and legislative branches to uphold its authority. Without a mechanism for direct enforcement, judicial decisions, no matter how constitutionally sound, can be rendered meaningless when those in power choose to ignore them.
But Jackson governed in a time when executive defiance could be contained within the messy pre-modern framework of federalism and patronage politics. In the 21st century, when the presidency is both vastly more powerful and more insulated from consequence, the risk is existential. If a president decides that a Supreme Court ruling is politically inconvenient and simply ignores it, what mechanism exists to stop him? None — except public backlash and political penalty. If those evaporate, so does judicial authority.
This is not a theoretical debate. Should a future president refuse to comply with a ruling on immigration, election law, or federal investigations, there would be no magic button for the Court to press. Enforcement relies entirely on the executive branch’s willingness to act against itself, a political ouroboros, a mythical symbol of a snake biting its own tail.
The Larger Consequences: When the Rule of Law Is Optional
The rule of law, that most elegant fiction, works because people believe it works. When disobedience carries political costs, presidents and governors choose compliance not out of affection for the Court, but out of self-interest. But in a polarized era where political bases reward defiance of institutions, that calculus changes. The price of ignoring the Court has shrunk, the rewards for defiance have grown.
What happens if noncompliance becomes routine? In the short term, constitutional order shudders but survives, just as it did in the years after Brown. But over time, the gravitational center shifts. The Court’s rulings become suggestions, then opinions, and finally irrelevant noise. The judicial branch, once treated as the Constitution’s oracle, risks becoming little more than a debating society issuing advisory opinions to be ignored or obeyed based on political convenience.
This is not the road to authoritarianism. It is the road to constitutional entropy, where checks and balances dissolve not because anyone abolishes them, but because no one respects them.
Reform and Safeguards: Bolstering a Court on the Brink
If the Supreme Court wants to protect itself from this fate, it needs to understand the difference between power and legitimacy. Power comes from rulings; legitimacy comes from broad public respect across the political spectrum. For decades, the Court spent its legitimacy as if the supply were endless. Dobbs, Shelby County, Bush v. Gore, each decision chipped away at the presumption that the Court was above politics. Restoring that legitimacy will take more than careful rulings. It will take institutional humility.
Image Credit: Pixabay
Congress could also step in, legislating clearer enforcement mechanisms for Supreme Court rulings, creating automatic triggers for executive action when the Court orders compliance, or even (in a more radical move) giving the Court some independent enforcement capacity. None of this would be easy or quick. But the alternative, leaving the Court to dangle, hoping that noncompliance remains rare, is a gamble with constitutional survival itself.
Conclusion: A System Built on Trust Cannot Survive Without It
In the end, the Supreme Court’s authority depends not on law, but on belief. Belief that rulings matter. Belief that defiance carries a price. Belief that even presidents must obey. That belief is weaker now than at any point since the Civil Rights Era, and the Court’s own choices have helped weaken it.
In the years ahead, if political incentives continue to reward defying the Court, the consequences will spread far beyond any single ruling or administration. A constitutional democracy cannot survive if the Court becomes a paper tiger, respected only when convenient, ignored when inconvenient. Legal precedent, the slow accumulation of meaning and authority, can dissolve faster than anyone expects if it ceases to command respect.
In the end, the Supreme Court’s power is only what others allow it to be. If the age of compliance ends, the age of the Court may end with it.
Further Readings:
Abusaif, Y., & Keith, D. (2025, February 14). What courts can do if the Trump administration defies court orders. Brennan Center for Justice. Available at: What Courts Can Do If the Trump Administration Defies Court Orders | Brennan Center for Justice
Ahdout, Z. P. (2022). Enforcement lawmaking and judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 135(4), 937. Available at: Enforcement Lawmaking and Judicial Review – Harvard Law Review
Johnson, T. R., Hertzog, G., & Houston, R. (2025, May 8). To avoid irrelevancy, the US Supreme Court must now speak with the full voice of its constitutional authority. LSE USAPP Blog. Available at: To avoid irrelevancy, the US Supreme Court must now speak with the full voice of its constitutional authority | USAPP
Miles, E. A. (1973). After John Marshall’s decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the nullification crisis. The Journal of Southern History, 39(4), 519–544. Available at: After John Marshall’s Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis on JSTOR
Whittington, K. E. (2007). Political foundations of judicial supremacy: The presidency, the Supreme Court, and constitutional leadership in U.S. history. Princeton University Press. Available at: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History on JSTOR
