A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices stayed home Tuesday night while President Donald Trump delivered his 2026 State of the Union address. Only four of nine justices sat in the House Chamber.
The absences came just days after the Court handed down a 6, 3 decision striking down Trump’s sweeping global tariff plan. The ruling found that the president exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a major setback for the administration’s economic agenda. Trump had already sharply criticized the justices who sided against him.
The timing raises an obvious question: Was this a snub, or business as usual?
As Fox News Digital reported, the four justices who attended were:
The five who skipped:
That’s a bipartisan no-show list. It includes two of the Court’s most reliable conservatives (Thomas and Alito), one Trump appointee (Gorsuch), and two liberal justices (Sotomayor and Jackson).
The media will frame these absences as a dramatic response to the tariff ruling. That framing deserves scrutiny. Justices are not legally required to attend the State of the Union. Invitations go out as a matter of tradition, and participation falls to individual discretion.
Justice Alito hasn’t attended a State of the Union since 2010. That year, he shook his head and appeared to mouth “not true” while President Obama criticized the Citizens United decision. Months later, Alito explained his decision to stay away:
“the proverbial potted plant,”
That’s how he described the experience of sitting silently through a partisan spectacle. He suggested he wouldn’t return anytime soon, and he hasn’t, for sixteen years running.
Justice Thomas has a similar track record. He attended President Obama’s first address in 2009 and never came back. The Washington Examiner noted Thomas once told students at Stetson University College of Law:
“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there.”
He wasn’t talking about Trump. He was talking about the event itself.
Chief Justice Roberts has attended every State of the Union since becoming chief justice in 2005. That streak held Tuesday night, even in the shadow of the tariff ruling. Roberts has previously described the political atmosphere surrounding the address as “very troubling,” once calling it a “pep rally.”
He shows up anyway. AP News reported that Roberts attended Trump’s 2020 State of the Union while simultaneously presiding over Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. That kind of institutional discipline, showing up even when it’s awkward, says something about the man.
Trump, for his part, did not mince words about the Court’s tariff decision. He said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” and called for “the courage to do what’s right for the country.”
Progressives want you to believe five justices boycotted Trump’s speech in protest. That narrative collapses under its own weight. Thomas and Alito have been skipping these addresses for over a decade, under presidents of both parties. Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Jackson round out the absent list, but no public explanation from any of the five has surfaced for this specific event.
The deeper issue isn’t who sat in the chamber. It’s the 6, 3 tariff ruling itself. The Court told the president his global tariff plan exceeded his authority under federal law. That’s a serious constitutional check. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, the justices exercised the power the Founders gave them.
Trump has every right to push back. Presidents always do. But the spectacle of who attends a speech is a sideshow compared to the substance of the decision.
The administration faces a genuine policy challenge. The tariff ruling was a major blow to its economic agenda. The White House will need to find a lawful path forward, through Congress, through revised executive action, or through the courts again.
Meanwhile, the State of the Union remains what it has become: a partisan rally where half the room stands and cheers while the other half sits on its hands. Justices who skip it aren’t making a political statement. They’re making a practical one.
When the speech becomes the spectacle, don’t blame the judges who’d rather read the Constitution at home.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.