Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
This affects the entire country.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Objection!
/ March 16, 2026
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
The emperor is stark naked, but thanks to a misguided legal doctrine, the Republican justices keep insisting he’s fully clothed.
Elie Mystal
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
President Donald Trump flanked by Vice President JD Vance, from left and House Speaker Mike Johnson during the 2026 State of the Union address.(Kenny Holston / The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
This article appears in the
April 2026 issue, with the headline “Irregular Justice.”
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Apparently, this famous quote was written by the 19th-century French poet Charles Baudelaire, but I first heard the line in the movie The Usual Suspects. I think about it often, as it encapsulates Donald Trump’s relationship with the Republicans on the Supreme Court.
The Donald Trump who exists in the real world—the racist, fascist sexual predator who happily tweets out the illegal and unconstitutional motivations for his policies—does not exist according to the Supreme Court. Instead, the court has invented a different Trump, one who does not speak, does not lie, and adheres to the well-established norms regarding the use of executive power. It has dreamed up a normal US president, grafted this creation onto Trump’s legal filings, and then ruled as if this fiction were reality.
There is a legal doctrine that explains what I believe the Supreme Court is doing: the “presumption of regularity,” which dates at least as far back as 1926. This doctrine instructs courts to assume that members of the executive branch have acted properly and in good faith. An administration is presumed to have bona fide reasons for its actions, and those actions are assumed not to be “pretextual,” meaning that courts are not supposed to act like the administration has invented a plausibly legal reason to justify its plainly illegal actions. The presumption of regularity is afforded to members of the executive branch and no one else. Only they can waltz into court and expect people to take them at their word.
We hear the Supreme Court invoke the presumption of regularity all the time, especially during oral arguments, when the justices talk about giving “deference” to the administration. This administration deserves no deference, because it lies all the time. But the presumption of regularity instructs the court to defer to the administration and assume it is telling the truth.
The result is that the court presumes Trump had a good reason for shutting down DEI programs, even when there is clear …
This affects the entire country.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Objection!
/ March 16, 2026
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
The emperor is stark naked, but thanks to a misguided legal doctrine, the Republican justices keep insisting he’s fully clothed.
Elie Mystal
Share
Copy Link
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Ad Policy
President Donald Trump flanked by Vice President JD Vance, from left and House Speaker Mike Johnson during the 2026 State of the Union address.(Kenny Holston / The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
This article appears in the
April 2026 issue, with the headline “Irregular Justice.”
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Apparently, this famous quote was written by the 19th-century French poet Charles Baudelaire, but I first heard the line in the movie The Usual Suspects. I think about it often, as it encapsulates Donald Trump’s relationship with the Republicans on the Supreme Court.
The Donald Trump who exists in the real world—the racist, fascist sexual predator who happily tweets out the illegal and unconstitutional motivations for his policies—does not exist according to the Supreme Court. Instead, the court has invented a different Trump, one who does not speak, does not lie, and adheres to the well-established norms regarding the use of executive power. It has dreamed up a normal US president, grafted this creation onto Trump’s legal filings, and then ruled as if this fiction were reality.
There is a legal doctrine that explains what I believe the Supreme Court is doing: the “presumption of regularity,” which dates at least as far back as 1926. This doctrine instructs courts to assume that members of the executive branch have acted properly and in good faith. An administration is presumed to have bona fide reasons for its actions, and those actions are assumed not to be “pretextual,” meaning that courts are not supposed to act like the administration has invented a plausibly legal reason to justify its plainly illegal actions. The presumption of regularity is afforded to members of the executive branch and no one else. Only they can waltz into court and expect people to take them at their word.
We hear the Supreme Court invoke the presumption of regularity all the time, especially during oral arguments, when the justices talk about giving “deference” to the administration. This administration deserves no deference, because it lies all the time. But the presumption of regularity instructs the court to defer to the administration and assume it is telling the truth.
The result is that the court presumes Trump had a good reason for shutting down DEI programs, even when there is clear …
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
This affects the entire country.
Log In
Email *
Password *
Remember Me
Forgot Your Password?
Log In
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
Skip to content Skip to footer
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
Magazine
Newsletters
Subscribe
Log In
Search
Subscribe
Donate
Magazine
Latest
Archive
Podcasts
Newsletters
Sections
Politics
World
Economy
Culture
Books & the Arts
The Nation
About
Events
Contact Us
Advertise
Current Issue
Objection!
/ March 16, 2026
Why Does the Supreme Court Treat Trump Like a “Regular” President?
The emperor is stark naked, but thanks to a misguided legal doctrine, the Republican justices keep insisting he’s fully clothed.
Elie Mystal
Share
Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky Pocket
Email
Ad Policy
President Donald Trump flanked by Vice President JD Vance, from left and House Speaker Mike Johnson during the 2026 State of the Union address.(Kenny Holston / The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
This article appears in the
April 2026 issue, with the headline “Irregular Justice.”
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Apparently, this famous quote was written by the 19th-century French poet Charles Baudelaire, but I first heard the line in the movie The Usual Suspects. I think about it often, as it encapsulates Donald Trump’s relationship with the Republicans on the Supreme Court.
The Donald Trump who exists in the real world—the racist, fascist sexual predator who happily tweets out the illegal and unconstitutional motivations for his policies—does not exist according to the Supreme Court. Instead, the court has invented a different Trump, one who does not speak, does not lie, and adheres to the well-established norms regarding the use of executive power. It has dreamed up a normal US president, grafted this creation onto Trump’s legal filings, and then ruled as if this fiction were reality.
There is a legal doctrine that explains what I believe the Supreme Court is doing: the “presumption of regularity,” which dates at least as far back as 1926. This doctrine instructs courts to assume that members of the executive branch have acted properly and in good faith. An administration is presumed to have bona fide reasons for its actions, and those actions are assumed not to be “pretextual,” meaning that courts are not supposed to act like the administration has invented a plausibly legal reason to justify its plainly illegal actions. The presumption of regularity is afforded to members of the executive branch and no one else. Only they can waltz into court and expect people to take them at their word.
We hear the Supreme Court invoke the presumption of regularity all the time, especially during oral arguments, when the justices talk about giving “deference” to the administration. This administration deserves no deference, because it lies all the time. But the presumption of regularity instructs the court to defer to the administration and assume it is telling the truth.
The result is that the court presumes Trump had a good reason for shutting down DEI programs, even when there is clear …
0 Comments
0 Shares
30 Views
0 Reviews
