In a recent interview, Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing them of an orchestrated “effort” to “quite literally overturn the will of the American people” through their rulings on immigration and due process, among other issues.
During a podcast interview with The New York Times, Vance specifically singled out Chief Justice John Roberts, characterizing recent comments made by the George W. Bush appointee about the court’s role in checking executive overreach as expressing a “profoundly wrong sentiment.”
Vance contended that Roberts’ view represented only “one-half of his job,” arguing that “the other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch.” He elaborated, stating, “You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now.” Vance told the interviewer that he believes the courts are facing a “real conflict between two important principles in the United States”: the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law and the American people’s right to determine their governance.
Asserting a strong stance, Vance stated, “I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now.”
Vance indicated that the Trump administration would continue to pursue its immigration policies through the existing immigration court system and the Supreme Court “as much as possible,” referencing ongoing legal battles to prevent the return of some immigrants and to continue deportations.
Defining success in this area, Vance said, “Success to me is that we have established a set of rules and principles that the courts are comfortable with, and that we have the infrastructure that allows us to deport large numbers of illegal aliens when large numbers of illegal aliens come into the country. That, to me, is real success. But I think whether we’re able to get there is a function, of course, of our efforts, but also the courts themselves.”
Discussing strategies for the Trump administration to assert its interpretation of the law, including seeking favorable Supreme Court rulings and legislative adjustments, Vance also mentioned an alternative approach: “There’s a third track, too, which is using existing legal authorities that haven’t been used in the past but we think are there.”
Vance’s interview comes against the backdrop of ongoing legal challenges and court decisions related to allegations of civil rights violations and the disregard of legal mandates in immigration cases nationwide.
As an example, Vance referenced a federal judge in Massachusetts who recently stated that the Trump administration had “unquestionably” violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan, a country with which the migrants had no connection, without due process or a reasonable opportunity to address their fears of returning to the war-torn nation. The judge suggested this action could constitute criminal contempt of court.
Vance also addressed the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man deported to El Salvador despite his protected status. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have accused the Trump administration of defying a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court by withholding information regarding efforts to “facilitate” his return to the United States following his deportation in March. Abrego Garcia’s case involves the government’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA), a wartime authority rarely used outside of wartime.
When questioned about the Trump administration’s current application and interpretation of the AEA, Vance claimed that migrants are not viewed as “uniformed combatants” but as “dangerous people” who are “intentionally” entering the U.S. and bringing “premodern brutality” and violence with them. When challenged on the notion of millions of people “waging war,” Vance responded by questioning the presence of “thousands, maybe tens of thousands” and the broader network of their extended families.
Vance asserted that regardless of specific legal wording, he believes the administration possesses the authority to take “very serious action” against illegal immigration and its perceived problems. “This is not sustainable,” he stated, characterizing the situation as “a level of invasion” that existing laws should address. He expressed his desire for the courts to be more deferential to the administration’s policies.
When asked about crime statistics that do not necessarily support the idea of an “invasion,” Vance suggested that such statistics sometimes do not capture the full picture. He claimed that those most victimized by this situation are not reporting to authorities. Instead, he pointed to the number of fentanyl overdose deaths as a more substantive indicator of the problem.
Specifically discussing the Abrego Garcia case, Vance alleged that the deported man was “not just a gang member, but a reasonably high-level gang member in MS-13” who had reportedly “engaged in some pretty ugly conduct,” though he did not specify the exact nature of this conduct.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, Vance recounted a conversation involving the presidents of the United States and El Salvador where the Salvadoran leader, Nayib Bukele, reportedly expressed reluctance to receive Abrego Garcia back, considering him a “bad guy.” Vance then questioned the feasibility and necessity of exerting “extraordinary diplomatic pressure” to return a foreign citizen with a valid deportation order to the United States.
Discussion about this post