Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a warning on Tuesday that the United States must maintain “judicial independence” just weeks away from President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. 

Roberts explained his concerns in his annual report on the federal judiciary. 

“It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics,” Robert wrote in the 15-page report. “Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the Nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s.” 

“Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” Roberts said, without naming Trump, President Biden or any specific lawmaker. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving. As my late colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, an independent judiciary is ‘essential to the rule of law in any land,’ yet it ‘is vulnerable to assault; it can be shattered if the society law exists to serve does not take care to assure its preservation.’”

“I urge all Americans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance,” Roberts said. 

DEMOCRATS LAUNCHED ‘CALCULATED EFFORT’ TO UNDERMINE SCOTUS SINCE DOBBS, CBS REPORTER SAYS

Roberts also quoted Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who remarked that the three branches of government “must work in successful cooperation” to “make possible the effective functioning of the department of government which is designed to safeguard with judicial impartiality and independence the interests of liberty.”

“Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law,” Roberts wrote.

A landmark Supreme Court immunity decision penned by Roberts, along with another high court decision halting efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot, were championed as major victories on the Republican nominee’s road to winning the election. The immunity decision was criticized by Democrats like Biden, who later called for term limits and an enforceable ethics code following criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices.

A handful of Democrats and one Republican lawmaker urged Biden to ignore a decision by a Trump-appointed judge to revoke FDA approval for the abortion drug mifepristone last year. Biden declined to take executive action to bypass the ruling, and the Supreme Court later granted the White House a stay permitting the sale of the medication to continue. 

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 5, 2024. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

The high court’s conservative majority also ruled last year that Biden’s massive student loan debt forgiveness efforts constitute an illegal use of executive power. 

THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE

Roberts and Trump clashed in 2018 when the chief justice rebuked the president for denouncing a judge who rejected his migrant asylum policy as an “Obama judge.”

In 2020, Roberts criticized comments made by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York while the Supreme Court was considering a high-profile abortion case.

Roberts introduced his letter Tuesday by recounting a story about King George III stripping colonial judges of lifetime appointments, an order that was “not well received.” Trump is now readying for a second term as president with an ambitious conservative agenda, elements of which are likely to be legally challenged and end up before the court whose conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.

In the annual report, the chief justice wrote generally that even if court decisions are unpopular or mark a defeat for a presidential administration, other branches of government must be willing to enforce them to ensure the rule of law. Roberts pointed to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegrated schools in 1954 as one that needed federal enforcement in the face of resistance from southern governors.

Chief Justice John Roberts, left, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito are seated as they and the other Supreme Court members sit for a group photo at the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

He also said “attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” 

While public officials and others have the right to criticize rulings, they should also be aware that their statements can “prompt dangerous reactions by others,” Roberts wrote. 

Threats targeting federal judges have more than tripled over the last decade, according to U.S. Marshals Service statistics. State court judges in Wisconsin and Maryland were killed at their homes in 2022 and 2023, Roberts wrote.

“Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable,” he wrote.

Roberts also pointed to disinformation about court rulings as a threat to judges’ independence, saying that social media can magnify distortions and even be exploited by “hostile foreign state actors” to exacerbate divisions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON —  I spent much of 2024 warning readers that a second Trump presidency would do serious damage to American institutions, beginning with democracy and the rule of law.

“The former president neither understands nor respects the Constitution,” I wrote. “He would use the powers of the federal government as an instrument of his whims, prosecuting opponents and rewarding donors instead of serving the public interest.”

Judging from the election results, about half of America’s voters disagreed. Many of them wrote to tell me how wrong I was.

“Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a reader named Ed Osborne scoffed.

I hope he’s right and that I was wrong. A less destructive Trump would come as a relief.

This is my annual “mea culpa” column, an end-of-the-year look back at what I got wrong and what (if anything) I got right.

Writing a column is a recurring opportunity to make mistakes in plain sight and repent them at leisure. Election years offer even more chances than usual to make bad guesses.

A drawn-out finish and economic optimism?

Here’s one: I expected the presidential election to be closer — and to take longer to resolve — than it was. “We won’t know who won on election night,” I predicted.

Wrong! Trump swept all seven swing states in short order, piling up an impressive electoral vote majority. His popular vote margin turned out to be one of the narrowest in recent history, but that didn’t become clear until California finished its leisurely count this month.

One reason I forecast a razor-close election was that I believed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, was successfully eroding Trump’s advantage on the most important issue: voters’ dissatisfaction with the economy.

“Maybe good economic news — a growing economy, easing inflation and lower interest rates — is finally seeping into voters’ consciousness, allowing Harris to reap some political benefit,” I wrote a month before the election.

Wrong again. Exit polls found that 45% of voters said they still felt worse off than they had during Trump’s first term. Only 24% said they were better off.

On one of the biggest stories of the year, President Biden’s disastrous performance in his June debate with Trump, another confession: I didn’t see it coming. Before the debate, I wrote that Biden’s age was clearly slowing him down; “he needs to show that he can not only find the stairs but think on his feet,” I advised. But I wasn’t concealing his condition; I never had a close enough look to support a tougher diagnosis.

To be fair (to myself, in this case), at least I didn’t commit the most basic error a reporter can make before an election: I didn’t predict who would win. In October, I wrote that the Trump-Harris race was too close to call — and it was.

I also noted that the Democratic nominee didn’t run a perfect campaign.

“She took a distressingly long time to define a clear, overarching vision,” I wrote. “Early in the campaign, her answers to tough questions often devolved into word salad. She struggled to explain how her presidency might differ from a second Joe Biden term.”

That made the election essentially a referendum on the Biden administration — a contest almost any Democrat was bound to lose.

A clear pattern and an unanswered question

When I sat in on focus groups of undecided voters last fall, a pattern became clear: Plenty had qualms about Trump, but they had confidence in his ability to improve the economy.

Many of them discounted Trump’s most worrisome proposals because they didn’t think he’d act on them — like Kevin, a home inspector in Atlanta, who said he thought Trump’s promise to slap huge tariffs on imports was “a bad idea, but I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere.”

And that brings us back to the question of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Who was right: Kevin or me?

That depends on which version of Trump emerges once he’s in office.

Polls show that most of his voters elected him mainly to bring prices down and reduce illegal immigration. But many don’t support separating migrant families, imposing tariffs that would spike inflation, or prosecuting political opponents.

Will Trump moderate any of his campaign promises? So far, he’s having it both ways.

He’s stuck to his vow to launch mass deportations, but said he might make an exception for “dreamers,” migrants who came to the United States as children. He’s threatened massive tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, but hinted that he might relent if they offer concessions. On some days, he says his critic former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) “should be investigated by the FBI”; on others, he tosses out a contradictory message of magnanimity, “Retribution will be through success.”

Here’s another prediction

Undaunted by my shaky track record, I’ve already made a prediction: Just as in his first term, Trump will try to carry out his promises, but will trim them back if he runs into opposition, especially from voters in his own party.

Mass deportation, for example, “is one promise Trump clearly intends to keep,” I wrote last month. “But there may be a debate in the new administration over how fast and how sweeping the deportation drive should be.” That debate, focusing mostly on the costs of a big operation, is already underway.

As for his most controversial Cabinet nominees — Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services, Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence — my guess is that Gabbard is the only one whose confirmation is in serious jeopardy.

I’ll be glad if I was mistaken. If I was, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Most Americans look at the beginning of a new year as a fresh start, and an opportunity to set goals to better themselves over the next 12 months – and members of Congress are no exception.

Like millions of people across the U.S., lawmakers are setting their own New Year’s resolutions, ranging from the professional to the very personal. 

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who is stepping down from the top spot on the committee after being term-limited, said his resolution was to use his new role as chairman emeritus “to be a strong voice on foreign policy and national security issues.”

On a more individual level, McCaul told Fox News Digital he also set a New Year’s resolution for “daily exercise and spending my time on the things most important in life, like family. And taking time to smell the roses.”

DANIEL PENNY TO BE TAPPED FOR CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL BY HOUSE GOP LAWMAKER

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said her New Year’s resolution involved cleaner eating.

“My New Year’s resolution is to not eat anything with seed oils. It’s going to be nearly impossible because they stick them in everything,” she said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, shared a broader goal for unity in 2025 involving his fellow House Republicans – after a 118th Congress marked by historic levels of discord and infighting.

Rep. Pat Fallon shared a resolution for unity within the House GOP. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

“I always said that the Republican conference is a big family,” Fallon said. “We may be dysfunctional at times, but we’re still a family, and my New Year’s resolution is that we can all sing from the same sheet music enough times to make a difference for the American people.”

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., said, “My New Year’s resolution is to help Make America Healthy Again by steering our nutrition policy toward promoting healthy food choices, starting with changes to the food stamp (SNAP) program.”

REPUBLICANS GIVE DETAILS FROM CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS WITH DOGE’S MUSK, RAMASWAMY

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., will provide the Republican response to President Biden’s State of the Union address on March 7. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

On the Senate side, lawmakers shared resolutions to forward the GOP agenda.

“With a new year, new Congress, and new President, I know we can get America back on track and usher in a new golden era. My 2025 resolutions are to help secure our southern border to make our families and communities safer; return to regular order to cut wasteful spending and ensure Congress is a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars; and pass pro-family tax reform that grows opportunity and prosperity across our nation,” Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said, “My New Year’s resolution is to become less tolerant of climate alarmism and hasten the demise of the administrative state.” The Republican will chair the energy committee in the new Congress. 

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., revealed his resolution is to “confirm all of Trump’s nominees and secure our borders.”