Vice President Vance Challenges Chief Justice Roberts on Role of the Judiciary in Immigration Policy

Vice President J.D. Vance sharply criticized Chief Justice John Roberts this week over comments the nation’s top judge made regarding the judiciary’s role in checking executive power. Vance called Roberts’ remarks “profoundly wrong,” arguing that the courts should instead show significant deference to the president—particularly in the area of immigration enforcement.

Speaking during an appearance on the Interesting Times podcast hosted by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, Vance rejected the idea that the judiciary’s primary function is to act as a check on the White House. Instead, he said, courts should largely defer to elected leaders when it comes to policy decisions, especially those involving national security and border control.

“I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment,” Vance said, referring to Roberts’ earlier speech. “That’s only half the job. The other half is ensuring that the judiciary doesn’t overstep its own boundaries. We can’t have a system where the American people vote for stronger immigration enforcement, and then courts tell them they can’t have what they voted for.”

Roberts had delivered his remarks during an event in Buffalo, New York, emphasizing the independence and constitutional role of the judicial branch. He stated that judges are tasked with interpreting the law and, in doing so, have the authority to strike down legislative or executive actions that violate the Constitution.

“The judiciary is a coequal branch of government,” Roberts said. “It is not subordinate. It has the authority to decide cases and, when necessary, check the excesses of the legislative and executive branches. That responsibility requires a degree of independence.”

Vance responded by arguing that while humane treatment of individuals remains important, the courts should not obstruct policy decisions made by the president—especially when those decisions relate to immigration and public safety.

He further suggested that the constitutional rights extended to undocumented immigrants are not absolute and should be revisited. “Yes, illegal immigrants are entitled to some due process, but the question of how much is due is still open,” Vance said. “It’s not clear that courts should step in every time there’s a dispute over enforcement.”

The interview came just days after the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan immigrants under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798 that grants broad wartime powers to the president. The court’s decision was seen as a significant win for the individuals at risk of removal, but it also rekindled the broader debate over the separation of powers.

When Douthat asked Vance about the administration’s reasoning behind invoking the Alien Enemies Act, Vance acknowledged that the situation was not identical to a wartime invasion. Still, he insisted that the country faces serious threats from within due to illegal immigration.

“No, we’re not dealing with five million uniformed soldiers,” Vance said. “But there are thousands of people who’ve entered this country with the intention of committing violence. That’s a public safety crisis. The president has the responsibility to act, and the courts should respect that.”

He continued, “Courts have to recognize that when it comes to public safety, they should be extremely deferential. The president is elected by the people and must make hard decisions. That authority shouldn’t be second-guessed by judges interpreting policy through an overly narrow legal lens.”

As the conversation shifted toward long-term immigration goals, Vance emphasized that success under the Trump administration shouldn’t be judged solely by the number of deportations, but by whether a clear legal framework is established that the courts will uphold.

“To me, success isn’t just about the number of deportations,” Vance said. “It’s about creating a system that the courts recognize and support—one that’s ready to respond when large numbers of people cross the border illegally.”

Vance also spoke candidly about the moral complexities he faces as a public official and a practicing Catholic. He acknowledged that balancing faith-based principles with law enforcement can be challenging.

“There are moments when I have to ask myself whether what we’re doing aligns with my faith,” he said. “Even when enforcing the law against people who pose a real threat, I think it’s important to ask whether our actions are consistent with the moral teachings of the Church.”

The vice president’s remarks signal a more assertive posture from the administration as it seeks to strengthen immigration enforcement while pushing back against legal constraints. His comments have added another layer to the ongoing conversation about the balance between judicial independence, executive authority, and democratic accountability—particularly when it comes to immigration, an issue likely to remain central through the next election cycle.