The United States Vice President JD Vance unleashed a controversy when questioning the authority of the Judiciary with his statement: “Who gave these judges the right to judge us?” These words, pronounced in the context of recent judicial failures that have stopped several executive orders of the Trump administration, have generated an intense debate about the separation of powers and the role of courts in US democracy. Vance, graduated from Yale’s Law School, has repeatedly challenged the ability of judges to limit what he considers the “legitimate power” of the Executive, arguing that judicial decisions should not hinder the president’s agenda.
Vance’s statement comes at a time when federal courts have issued temporary orders that block Trump’s key initiatives, such as the elimination of citizenship by birth, mass cuts to federal expenditure and access to the Government Efficiency Department, led by Elon Musk, sensitive treasure systems. For Vance, these judicial interventions are equivalent to unacceptable overreach. In publications in social networks and previous interviews, he has suggested that the Executive could ignore judicial failures, citing the alleged position of former president Andrew Jackson: “The President of the Supreme Court has issued his ruling, now that he enforces him.” This rhetoric has alarmed legal experts, who warn that challenging judicial orders could trigger a constitutional crisis.
Critics, including Democrats and academics, have condemned Vance’s words as a direct attack on the principle of judicial review, established in 1803 by the Marbury v. Madison This precedent consecrated the right of the courts to evaluate the legality of the actions of the Executive and the Legislative. “Vance knows that judges have the constitutional authority to review government actions,” said Constitutional Law professor Jamal Greene. “His comments are an invitation to undermine the rule of law.” Even the president of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, seemed to respond indirectly to Vance in his 2024 end -year report, warning against suggestions of disobedience to judicial failures.
On the other hand, Vance supporters argue that he is defending the executive’s sovereignty against a judiciary they perceive as an activist. Figures such as Elon Musk and Senator Tom Cotton have supported this position, criticizing specific judges for blocking administration policies. However, the lack of clarity in the definition of “legitimate power” by Vance has generated confusion. Experts point out that the courts exist precisely to determine the legality of the executive actions, not to blindly accept the legitimacy statements of the president.
Vance’s rhetoric reflects a growing tension in American politics, where confidence in institutions, including the Judiciary, is under scrutiny. If the Trump administration chose to ignore judicial failures, the country could face a turning point in its democratic system. For now, legal appeals continue their course, but Vance’s words have lit a debate on the limits of power and fragility of constitutional norms.
