With Donald Trump's return to the White House, many Americans are left wondering who, if anyone, will curb any autocratic moves he may pursue. Trump has openly discussed deploying the Justice Department and even military forces against his political rivals-actions that could breach both legal and constitutional limits. Restraining such maneuvers now depends heavily on a Republican-led Senate, potentially a GOP-controlled House, and a Supreme Court that may be hesitant to intervene. Critics like former GOP Congressman Joe Walsh and former Trump aide Olivia Troye express skepticism about these checks. Walsh, who actively campaigned against Trump's re-election, warns that GOP leaders may become even more compliant, encouraged by Trump's re-election victory. Reflecting on past impeachments where Trump faced minimal GOP defection, Walsh suggests that his party might now actively support measures that push constitutional boundaries. The Supreme Court's role in this landscape is crucial. Trump's first term secured him a conservative legacy on the bench with young justices whose influence could last decades. Currently, the court has a conservative majority that may not readily challenge Trump's policies, especially those viewed as voter-endorsed. With Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito-both in their mid-7os-possibly considering retirement, Trump's term could secure an even stronger conservative majority. These justices are less inclined to retire strategically, as past liberal judges attempted under sympathetic administrations, hoping to maintain ideological continuity. But with firm conservative replacements for future vacancies, the Democratic path to a liberal court majority seems dim for the foreseeable future. The Court's conservative direction may shape U.S. policy far beyond Trump's second term, particularly in areas like civil rights, environmental protections, and social issues. Recent cases suggest the justices are primed to limit federal regulatory power and reassess long-standing rulings, potentially including those on affirmative action, voting rights, and even same-sex marriage protections. Some conservatives advocate even more ambitious legal transformations, such as establishing fetal personhood under the Constitution, which could fundamentally reshape American law. In recent years, Democrats have flirted with reform ideas like court expansion to counterbalance this conservative shift. However, historical attempts at "court-packing," like FDR's in the 1930s, show how challenging it is to realize such structural changes, even with political majorities. Following Trump's victory, such reforms seem less likely than ever. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, though officially apolitical, cannot ignore public sentiment entirely. Trump's re-election sends a message that Americans, or at least a significant portion of them, support the direction in which the Court is heading-meaning any changes, if they happen at all, will likely take generations, not years.