Five of nine Supreme Court justices skipped President Donald Trump's 2026 State of the Union address Tuesday night, leaving just four in the front row of the House chamber. The absences came just days after the Court struck down Trump's signature global tariff policy in a 6-3 ruling that found his sweeping tariff plan exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett attended. Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not.

Trump did not let the absences pass without comment. He told the assembled Congress he was "ashamed of certain members of the court" and challenged the justices to show "the courage to do what's right for the country." His criticism included members of the conservative bloc and two justices he appointed during his first term, Fox News reported.

A Tradition Built on Symbolism, Not Obligation

Supreme Court justices are not legally required to attend the State of the Union. Invitations are extended as a matter of tradition, and participation is left to individual discretion. The justices' presence in the front row has long served as a visual symbol of institutional unity across the branches of government, but attendance has long been uneven.

That said, a majority of the Court choosing to stay home, days after handing the president a stinging defeat on one of his central policy initiatives, carries a weight that transcends scheduling conflicts. The timing invites a reading that the justices themselves may not have intended, or may have intended entirely.

The Long Retreat from the Chamber

Several of the absences Tuesday night were hardly surprises. Justice Alito has not attended a State of the Union since 2010, when he famously shook his head and appeared to mouth "not true" during President Obama's criticism of the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Months later, Alito said publicly that sitting through the address made him feel like "the proverbial potted plant" and suggested he would not return in the near future. He kept that promise for sixteen years.

Justice Thomas followed a similar path. After attending President Obama's first address in 2009, he did not return, later describing the experience as uncomfortable.

Both men had reasons to stay away long before tariffs entered the conversation. Their absences reflect a principled objection to the politicization of an event where justices are expected to sit silently while lawmakers leap to their feet around them. That objection deserves more respect than it typically receives.

The More Interesting Absences

Alito and Thomas have a track record of skipping these speeches. Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Jackson make the absences harder to dismiss as routine. When five justices stay away simultaneously, and the absentees span the ideological spectrum, it stops looking like personal preference and starts looking like institutional fracture.

Chief Justice Roberts, for his part, has attended every State of the Union since becoming chief justice in 2005. His consistency signals something about the weight he places on institutional norms, even uncomfortable ones. Roberts has described the political atmosphere surrounding the address as "very troubling" and questioned whether it remained appropriate for the justices to attend what had devolved into a political "pep rally."

He showed up anyway. That matters.

The Tariff Ruling Looms Over Everything

The 6-3 decision striking down Trump's tariff plan landed just days before Tuesday night's address. The Court ruled that the president exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. For an administration that has made trade policy a centerpiece of its economic agenda, the ruling was a direct challenge to executive power on a signature issue.

Trump's response from the podium was direct and unapologetic. Presidents have clashed with the Court before. Obama's 2010 rebuke of Citizens United, with the justices sitting right in front of him, remains one of the most memorable State of the Union moments in recent history. But there is a difference between criticizing a ruling and suggesting that justices lack courage. The former is political theater. The latter is a personal challenge.

Whether the absent justices stayed away because of the tariff ruling, because of anticipated presidential criticism, or because they simply preferred not to sit through a lengthy address is impossible to know from the outside. The source material offers no explanation from Gorsuch, Sotomayor, or Jackson. Their silence is its own statement.

Institutions Under Pressure

The deeper story here is not about seating arrangements. It is about what happens when the branches of government stop performing the rituals that signal mutual respect, even grudging respect.

Conservatives should think carefully about this moment. The Court's independence is not a liberal value or a conservative value. It is a structural one. The same Court that handed down the tariff ruling also includes justices who have delivered landmark conservative victories. Judicial independence cuts in every direction, and the justices who rule against a Republican president today may rule against a Democrat one tomorrow.

That does not mean the tariff decision was correct. Reasonable legal minds can disagree about the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA, and the administration will undoubtedly pursue alternative paths to achieve its trade objectives. But the mechanism for challenging a ruling is legislative action, executive creativity, or eventual reconsideration by the Court itself. It is not the public shaming of individual justices.

The front row of the House chamber had four justices in it on Tuesday night. Five chairs sat empty. The visual said more than any speech could.