TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The United States (US) Supreme Court is facing growing internal tensions over both its relationship with President Donald Trump and the increasingly lengthy oral arguments that some justices now openly criticize.
The New York Times reported that the uneasy relationship between the Trump administration and the Supreme Court has become more visible as the court prepares to issue several major rulings that could determine the fate of key parts of Trump’s agenda.
Vice President JD Vance recently made an unannounced visit to the Supreme Court to attend a private dinner with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and dozens of the chief justice’s former law clerks. Vance attended alongside his wife, Usha Vance, who clerked for Roberts nearly a decade ago.
Although people familiar with the gathering described it as a social visit, the meeting reflected what The New York Times described as an “awkward dance” between the Trump administration and the court.
Trump has alternated between publicly criticizing the justices and attempting to maintain close ties with them, especially as the court considers cases directly related to his policies. The report said Trump appears increasingly frustrated by the court’s role as one of the few institutions capable of limiting presidential power.
At the center of the tension is Trump’s apparent belief that justices, particularly those he appointed, should remain politically loyal rather than operate independently as members of a separate branch of government.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended Trump’s public criticism of the court, saying Americans value the president’s willingness to “freely speak his mind.”
At the same time, the Supreme Court itself is dealing with internal frustrations over the way oral arguments are conducted, according to CNN.
Several justices have recently complained that arguments have become excessively long and less disciplined. Chief Justice Roberts described the sessions as “way too long” during a legal conference in Pennsylvania and said he planned to review the issue over the summer.
Justice Samuel Alito also criticized the current format, saying there is “too much speechifying” and “too little asking real questions,” according to SCOTUSblog.
The Supreme Court’s oral arguments traditionally last around 60 minutes. However, CNN reported that the average argument this term lasted nearly 90 minutes, about 10 minutes longer than during the pandemic-era remote sessions.
The longest argument this term lasted almost three hours during a case involving Trump’s global tariff policy, which the court later struck down.
The extended sessions partly stem from procedural changes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. During remote hearings, justices asked questions in order of seniority rather than interrupting freely in the traditional “hot bench” format.
When in-person hearings resumed in 2021, the justices adopted a hybrid system combining free-form questioning with a second round of structured questioning known as “seriatim.”
Some justices now believe the compromise has made arguments more difficult to control.
Justice Clarence Thomas, however, expressed no concern about the longer hearings. Speaking at a judicial conference in Miami, Thomas joked that he had no problem sitting through extended sessions.
“I don’t play golf. I don’t play cards. I don’t hang out. So, I can sit there all day,” Thomas said.
CNN also reported that the court’s liberal justices tend to speak significantly more during oral arguments than their conservative colleagues.
According to research cited by CNN, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke for an average of more than six minutes per case this term, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson averaged more than eight minutes. No other justice averaged more than five minutes.
Legal experts said the growing length of oral arguments may affect public accessibility and the court’s transparency.
Tonja Jacobi, a law professor at Emory University who studies Supreme Court arguments, told CNN that the longer sessions may paradoxically make proceedings harder for the public to follow.
“It’s become a little less accessible,” Jacobi said. “I do think there’s a lot less discipline now.”
The prolonged arguments have also led to increasingly awkward exchanges among the justices.
During a March hearing on asylum policy, Sotomayor sharply questioned a Trump administration attorney for nearly three minutes about migrants being deported into dangerous conditions.
As the exchange became increasingly tense, Roberts intervened and told the attorney to complete his answer without interruption.
The current questioning format has also created strategic complications among the justices themselves. Because the structured questioning follows seniority order, Justice Jackson frequently gets the final word during arguments, while Thomas often speaks first.
Alito recently criticized the arrangement during another hearing, noting sarcastically that Sotomayor would always receive the “surrebuttal” because of her seniority position under the current system.
Despite the internal disagreements over procedure, legal analysts noted that oral arguments often have limited influence on final decisions because the justices usually enter hearings after reviewing extensive written briefs and forming preliminary opinions.
Still, the public nature of the hearings continues to offer rare insight into how the court approaches politically sensitive disputes, especially as Trump and the Supreme Court increasingly collide over the future direction of the United States government.
Read: US Judge Orders Trump White House to Comply With Presidential Records Act
Click here to get the latest news updates from Tempo on Google News
