Supreme Court Justices Brace for Trump’s State of the Union

It’s a peculiar sight, really. While some of America’s most influential figures take center stage, the Supreme Court justices remain like statues—quiet, unyielding. For them, the annual State of the Union tradition requires a masterclass in discretion.

This year’s address, set for Tuesday, is particularly significant. Not just for what President Trump will say but also for the judges who will be present. Each year, the atmosphere is charged, perhaps more so now that a recent ruling by a 6-3 majority has overturned some of the president’s economic policies.

Trump has been vocal about his discontent, especially toward the six justices who did not align with him, including two he nominated himself. He expressed that he felt “ashamed” of certain members for their, as he put it, “lack of courage to do what’s right for our country.”

Notably, Justice Samuel Alito has hinted he might abstain from future addresses, citing a challenging environment after President Obama’s sharp critique of the court’s decisions back in 2010. Historically, though, it’s common for justices to appear at these events. While the law doesn’t mandate their attendance, custom often dictates that they show up, acting as a backdrop to the proceedings.

The Court hasn’t confirmed who will attend this year, as invitations will be extended to individual justices. They usually enter in groups, proudly dressed, and take up front-row seats amid the throng of Congress members. Retired justices also typically participate, alongside court staff members.

Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan have made it a habit to show up, along with former Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy.

Flashback to 2010: the mood turned sour when a then-animated Obama took shots at the court during his speech regarding campaign spending, particularly referencing the Citizens United ruling which allowed corporations and unions to spend freely during elections. Alito was visibly unsettled; he reportedly mouthed a dissenting remark just a few seats away.

That speech led Alito to question the purposes of attending these events, likening his experience to being a “potted plant.” In fact, he chose to skip the following year’s address altogether, instead opting for a law symposium in Hawaii.

Roberts, reflecting on past tensions, described the atmosphere at the 2010 address as “very disturbing” and wondered aloud if their presence at such political spectacles made sense anymore. After all, it often feels more like a “political pep rally” than a sober event, as he noted.

Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed discomfort as well, admitting he hasn’t returned since Obama’s first address. Justice Antonin Scalia, though known for his outspoken nature, referred to the event as a “cheerleading session,” indicating his strong aversion to the proceedings.

While the Supreme Court members are expected to strike a neutral tone, reactions to comments—whether about veterans or other nonpartisan topics—can leave them uncertain about how to respond. These events can feel like a trap, as they seek to maintain an air of impartiality amidst overt political displays.

Interestingly, despite the expected formality during State of the Union addresses, the Supreme Court justices did all gather for President Trump’s last inauguration. There, amid the solemnity, they too had to maintain their composure, some even assisting with administering oaths.

As for the past State of the Union addresses, Justice Breyer has been the most steadfast attendee since joining the bench in 1994, missing only one due to illness. He maintains that participation is vital. Others, however, view attendance as an unwelcome requirement, a notion Breyer disagrees with.

As the upcoming address approaches, many in the legal community are curious to see which members will show up, how they will react, and if the tension of politics will reign supreme yet again in the hushed halls of Congress.