Following Court Orders — Week of Jun 22, 2026

This week, two events raised questions about whether the executive branch is respecting the authority of federal courts. First, during Senate confirmation hearings, four nominees for lifetime federal judgeships refused to say whether the Constitution prohibits a third presidential term — a straightforward question with a clear answer in the 22nd Amendment. Senator Coons, who asked the question, said the nominees appeared unwilling to give an honest answer, raising concerns about potential influences on their independence. Second, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion on June 18 rejecting a landmark Supreme Court ruling on disability rights (Olmstead v. L.C.), with the DOJ itself admitting its new position contradicts how federal courts have understood the law for over 25 years.

This might matter because the independence of federal courts depends on judges who will apply the law honestly and an executive branch that follows what courts have decided. If future judges are selected partly based on their willingness to avoid contradicting the President — even on settled constitutional questions — this could affect the judiciary's role as a check on presidential power, which exists to prevent any single branch of government from overreaching. If the DOJ formally rejects established Supreme Court precedent, this could weaken the principle that government agencies must follow court rulings.

There are alternative explanations worth considering. Judicial nominees often avoid answering questions during hearings to prevent the appearance of prejudging cases — this is common practice across administrations. Nominees may also have misunderstood the question or been overly cautious in applying this standard. However, the 22nd Amendment is not an open legal question, making these explanations less persuasive than usual. On the DOJ opinion, agencies do sometimes reinterpret court rulings as part of normal legal debate, and the DOJ may be seeking to update its position based on new policy considerations rather than defying the courts. No official explanation from the administration has been identified for either the nominees' responses or the DOJ's reinterpretation.

Limitations: This analysis relies on a small number of documents (12) and primarily on statements by Senators describing what happened, rather than direct records of the hearings or the DOJ opinion itself. This is AI-generated analysis, not a finding of fact.