Photo via Reason

Trump Again Condemns His Supreme Court Nominees As Too Cowardly To Agree With Him

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Sullum, J. (2026, September 15). Trump Again Condemns His Supreme Court Nominees As Too Cowardly To Agree With Him. Reason. https://reason.com/2026/09/15/trump-again-condemns-his-supreme-court-nominees-as-too-cowardly-to-agree-with-him/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-15 · by Jacob Sullum

Quick Summary

President Donald Trump criticized his Supreme Court appointees—Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett—on Truth Social for what he deemed as political cowardice in rejecting a request for an emergency stay of a U.S. Postal Service plan to screen mail-in ballots. The immediate cause was the court's decision against Trump’s application on Monday regarding USPS v. California. Trump views his appointees' rulings against him not as legal disagreements but as a lack of courage, attributing their decisions to fear rather than principled judgment.
Written by AI on 2026-09-15, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

Postmaster General David Steiner announced that the U.S. Postal Service has halted work on a controversial computer system developed under President Donald Trump's executive order, aimed at limiting voting by mail. This decision follows Supreme Court rulings striking down the executive order and issuing injunctions against implementing it. The suspension was confirmed in an interview with The Associated Press, where Steiner, who previously worked as CEO of Waste Management, emphasized his agency’s role as independent from political directives despite navigating financial hardships and political turbulence caused by Trump's policies. Unlike Trump, who criticized the court decisions, Steiner avoided commenting on the rulings' merits or implications for voter eligibility ahead of critical midterm elections in November.

Written for “Trump Mail Voting Restrictions” on 2026-11-02, grounded in this article and the 46 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Trump Mail Voting Restrictions
Politics · 47 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 12% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Toronto Star
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 1 of 30 claims Outlet record 64/100
Mother Jones
⚖️ Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 9 of 73 claims Outlet record 60/100
“Article A describes the Supreme Court's rejection of Trump's mail ballot scheme, while Article B reports on Trump's reaction to this decision through condemning his Supreme Court nominees.”
Reason
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 7 of 57 claims Outlet record 67/100
“Article A focuses on Chief Justice Roberts' ruling in United States Postal Service v. California, while Article B discusses President Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court rejecting an emergency stay application from his administration regarding USPS regulations.”
BBC News
Hedges 7 of 45 claims Outlet record 68/100
“While both articles involve President Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court decision regarding mail-in ballot restrictions, Article A focuses on his immediate criticism of the decision itself, whereas Article B reports on a later instance where he criticizes his own nominees for not supporting him.”
NBC News
Outlet record 60/100
“While both articles mention the Supreme Court's decision regarding mail-in ballots, Article B discusses Trump's reaction to the ruling rather than the ruling itself.”
UPI
Hedges 2 of 13 claims Outlet record 56/100
“Article A describes the Supreme Court rejecting Trump's plan for limiting mail-in voting, while Article B reports on Trump's reaction to this decision, criticizing his own appointees.”
The Independent
Hedges 6 of 24 claims Outlet record 59/100
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 1 of 16 claims Outlet record 70/100
“The articles discuss different events: one focuses on Trump's criticism of Supreme Court Justices, while the other covers a federal appeals court hearing regarding Trump's attempt to gut government agencies.”
The Straits Times
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 3 of 17 claims Outlet record 66/100
“The articles describe different court rulings related to Trump's policies, not the same specific incident.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
33
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
12%
4 of 33 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
47
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-15 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1052 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Jacob Sullum
33 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 The New York Times presents Ho's speech as evidence that he hopes Trump will nominate him to the Supreme Court, assuming that opportunity arises during the next two years.
🔮 Question 8, a.k.a. the Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative, would permit adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis.
🔮 In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state.
🔮 But the Justice Department's manual for prosecutors says they should not pursue criminal charges unless "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient" to meet the latter test.
🔮 I would tell you what I did with it, but I don't want to implicate myself in a federal felony.
🔮 The new case "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice," Comey said in an online video on Monday.
🔮 But as two recent cases illustrate, there are limits to this license for misconduct, meaning officials may still be held accountable when they flout longstanding constitutional principles, even when they do so in novel ways.
🔮 Their divorced parents, Bart Rockett and Kami Ballard, agreed that Ballard, who at that point lived in Missouri, would have primary custody of the children, while Rockett, who was living in California, would be "responsible for them at the beginning of each month and 'during TV pilot season.'"
🔮 But in a decision that could signal a shift in the legal treatment of Flock cameras, a federal judge in Oklahoma recently recognized that they enable "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance."
🔮 According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which last Friday demanded network communications regarding the TV pool, that show of solidarity may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Also by Jacob Sullum
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 33 articles by Jacob Sullum →

Topics

Court U.S. Postal Service the Postal Service the Supreme Court the United States Supreme Court

Subjects

Trump PERSON · 7× America GPE · 4× the Supreme Court ORG · 3× Court ORG · 2× Democrats NORP · 2× Republican NORP · 2× U.S. Postal Service ORG · 2× the Postal Service ORG · 2× Brett Kavanaugh PERSON · 1× Donald Trump PERSON · 1×

Narrative

The Court's inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History." It seems unlikely that historians will rank the Supreme Court's decisions rejecting Trump's illegal tariffs and his assault on the 14th Amendment alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-15
🔮 Although "there is at least a fair prospect" that the Postal Service would win on the merits, he said, "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections."

Claims (33 extracted, 4 hedged)

On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump slammed his own picks for the Supreme Court, condemning them as both cowardly and "highly political." asserted
Trump → slam → them
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett "are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court," he wrote on Truth Social. asserted
he → interview → Social
Trump wanted the Court to block a preliminary injunction against implementation of a U.S. Postal Service plan to screen mail-in ballots, the result of an executive order he issued in March. asserted
he → want → March
That plan was necessary, he said, as "a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting 'disaster,' which is a laughing stock all over the World." asserted
which → say → World
But while he was on the subject of "horrible" Supreme Court decisions, he reiterated his complaints about its rulings against his "emergency" tariffs and his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. asserted
he → reiterate → citizenship
Trump's latest tirade against his nominees reflects his general attitude toward judicial review, which he sees as an illegitimate obstacle to his policy agenda and personal whims. asserted
he → reflect → agenda
As the president tells it, Trump appointees do not rule against him because they honestly disagree with his legal positions. asserted
they → tell → positions
Rather, they are "totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America" because they "are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats." asserted
they → show → Democrats
It is a character defect, as opposed to a careful consideration of the facts and the law, that explains their failure to side with him. asserted
that → oppose → him
That take is counterintuitive, to say the least. asserted
take → say → least
According to Trump, it requires courage for justices to agree with the president who appointed them, while cravenness is the only possible explanation for failing to do so. uncertain
cravenness → accord → them
"The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction," the Supreme Court said on Monday, when it declined to issue a stay in U.S. Postal Service v. California, the mail-in ballot case. asserted
it → succeed → California
"And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay." asserted
factors → obtain → stay
Kavanaugh wrote a short concurring statement. asserted
Kavanaugh → write → statement
Although "there is at least a fair prospect" that the Postal Service would win on the merits, he said, "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections." asserted
officials → be → elections
Seven justices, in other words, did not think a stay was appropriate, either because the Postal Service had probably exceeded its legal authority or because trying to implement the rule now would disrupt the elections. asserted
trying → think → elections
But according to Trump, those rationales were disingenuous. uncertain
rationales → accord → Trump
As he explained after the tariff ruling in February, the three Democratic nominees on the Supreme Court "automatically vote no" because they are "against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again." asserted
America → explain → anything
And the Republican nominees who vote against him are, if anything, even more contemptible: They are "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical-left Democrats." asserted
They → vote → RINOs
They "may think they're being politically correct," but "they're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." uncertain
they → think → Constitution
Or as he put it in Tuesday, they are "bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years." asserted
that → put → America
At the same time, Trump described the order in the Postal Service case as "highly political." asserted
Trump → describe → case
"It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself," he said, because it "makes cheating by the Radical Left 'Dumocrats,' on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do." asserted
cheating → say → Ballots
The implication that the Republican appointees (presumably including Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Trump's nominees) were eager to facilitate such Democratic chicanery seems inconsistent with the equally implausible claim that they were intimidated into compromising their party's interests. uncertain
they → include → interests
For Trump, the main point is that his nominees, regardless of their motivation, have betrayed him, which means they have betrayed their country. asserted
they → betray → country
"Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars," he said. asserted
he → cost → Dollars
This Court "will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country's history," Trump declared. asserted
Trump → go → history
Those "shockingly bad rulings," he said, are "of such magnitude that it won't be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal. asserted
Country → say → magnitude
Do Trump's nominees care? asserted
nominees → care → ?
They do not! asserted
They → do → ?
"The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does," he said. asserted
he → do → this
The Court's inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History." It seems unlikely that historians will rank the Supreme Court's decisions rejecting Trump's illegal tariffs and his assault on the 14th Amendment alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States. asserted
historians → go → States
But they probably will be struck by this president's open contempt for the crucial role that an independent judiciary plays as a safeguard against tyranny. asserted
judiciary → strike → tyranny
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support