Opinion: Court Fights Are Not Side Shows When Policy Runs Through the Judiciary
When presidents govern through aggressive claims of authority, courtrooms become part of the policy process.
INDIANAPOLIS | The easiest way to misunderstand Washington is to treat court fights as side shows. They are not side shows when policy itself runs through the judiciary.
Recent disputes over tariffs and the Kennedy Center show the point. The Hill reported President Donald Trump’s criticism of the court system after rulings involving the Kennedy Center and tariffs. Associated Press reported that the administration plans to appeal an order allowing importers that paid struck-down tariffs to seek refunds.
Those stories may look separate: one cultural, one economic. But they share the same institutional question. How far can a president go, and who decides when the answer is no?
Courts are not supposed to be campaign headquarters, but they are also not optional. If an administration uses broad claims of executive power to impose tariffs or reshape a national institution, judges will eventually be asked whether the law permits it.
That is not judicial meddling by default. Sometimes it is constitutional housekeeping. Sometimes judges get things wrong. But the answer to an unfavorable ruling is appeal, compliance and argument, not treating the existence of judicial review as illegitimate.
The tariff refund fight shows why this matters for ordinary people. If tariffs were unlawfully collected, the refund process affects companies, prices and consumers. A courtroom decision can therefore become a kitchen-table issue.
The Kennedy Center fight shows the cultural version of the same problem. Public institutions do not belong to whoever is loudest in a given news cycle. They exist inside laws, traditions and public expectations that cannot be rewritten by impulse.
Politics will always argue about courts. That is normal. What is dangerous is pretending courts are only valid when they approve the policy outcome one side wants.
The better standard is simple: make the argument, follow the ruling, appeal if appropriate, and remember that checks and balances are not a malfunction of government. They are the design.
Additional Reporting By: The Hill; Associated Press
What this means
For readers, the opinion matters because legal process is not separate from public policy when courts decide whether tariffs, appointments or institutional changes are lawful.
The practical civic test is whether leaders respect rulings even while appealing them.