As the nation marks the 250th anniversary of the Constitution, we should confront a structural
question that receives far too little attention: What happens if a President refuses to comply with
a ruling of the Supreme Court?
Over decades, both Congress and the Court have contributed to a presidency with more concentrated power than the Framers intended. Congress has weakened itself through gridlock and partisan entrenchment. The Supreme Court, through decisions expanding presidential immunity and narrowing avenues for accountability, has further strengthened the office.
The result is a modern presidency that holds the only practical enforcement authority in the federal system. Neither Congress nor the Court has any enforcement power of its own. Congress can pass resolutions or express disapproval, but these actions are non‑binding and cannot compel compliance. If a President ignores a Supreme Court ruling, no other branch has the power to enforce it.
This imbalance is not theoretical. Modern political movements, including Project 2025, have openly identified this weakness and built strategies around it.
In this anniversary year, we should address this constitutional flaw.
Clyde L. Younger
Former Watertown Council President
Watertown, Massachusetts
I see several problems with the premise of your letter.
One, the Supreme Court has had to define the proper roles of all three branches of government (including its own) since the nation’s founding, favoring one over another as disputes arise. This is not new, but never more than now has the judiciary itself been more activist—for good or ill—leading the Supreme Court sometimes to admonish the lower courts to “stay in their lane”. You are correct that only the Executive has enforcement power, but that too is not new, and is the very role of the Executive: to enforce the laws enacted by Congress.
Congress has the unique “power of the purse”; the Supreme Court is the final word on law; the President nominates SCOTUS justices; Congress approves them (or not) and otherwise advises and consents; the People (the ultimate authority) elect two of the branches; those two branches haggle over the third. It’s a merry-go-round of checks and balances that has held (with some stumbles) for a quarter of a millennium.
But in raising the question, you neglected to mention that a President recently did refuse to comply with a ruling by the Supreme Court: President Biden on writing off student loans (Biden v. Nebraska). He tried an end-around after losing the decision, and was rebuffed by lower courts citing the Nebraska ruling. The system held.
Far from a Constitutional flaw, the separation of powers has largely worked (even after the above-mentioned stumbles). Would you have a Congressional Army to rival the Commander-in-Chief’s? A Supreme Court paramilitary organization to enforce its decisions? Is “gridlock and partisan entrenchment” a President’s fault? Or Congress’s? Or, rather, a valid expression of the electorate’s split opinion?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams wrote. Let us pray there is some wiggle room. Perhaps, let us just pray.
The only mechanism available is impeachment, its not a flaw its a feature. Any change to that would require a new amendment to the constitution.