Chief Justice John Roberts defended the role of the courts as an umpire against "excesses" from the other branches of government, even as he continued to ignore widespread misconduct from rogue judges.
While he did not name President Trump, Roberts clearly took a veiled jab at the President, who has repeatedly condemned activist judges for obstructing his administration.
"Well, I've already spoken to that. You know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said at the event in Buffalo, New York. "That's what we're there for," he said, referring to the Supreme Court.
The courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump in various ways from pursuing his agenda. Defending the "independence" of the judiciary, Robert said it is the court's role to correct the "excesses" of the other co-equal branches, but he pointedly failed to mention the excesses of the courts themselves.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.
"Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence."
Roberts had previously spoken out against Trump in March after an Obama appointee, James Boasberg, took the extraordinary step of ordering Trump to turn back deportation flights.
When Trump called for the judge to face impeachment, Roberts issued a rare public response stating that the normal appeal process is the appropriate avenue for contesting a ruling.
The problem, as Trump and many others see it, is that the courts are engaged in a practice of systematic and abusive meddling that rises beyond a mere "disagreement."
While an independent judiciary is obviously important, judges must also respect the limits of their own power. Roberts' conservative colleague, Justice Samuel Alito, acknowledged this balance in a recent dissent, writing, "Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law."
While Roberts has yet to publicly comment on the judicial activism that is cropping up everywhere, his court has not been able to avoid the issue completely.
Last month, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to "facilitate" the return of Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but the justices also instructed a lower court judge in the case to "clarify" her ruling in a manner that reflects "the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to rebuke judicial activism later this week when it hears arguments on birthright citizenship. The Trump administration is using the case to advance its broader objections to the rampant abuse of nationwide injunctions.
Judicial activism is damaging the integrity of the courts, and that ought to concern Roberts, no matter what he thinks about Trump and his rhetoric.
