President Trump’s outrage at the Federalist Society — last week he called its longtime leader, Leonard Leo, a “sleazebag”  — could preview even more presidential eruptions toward the Supreme Court, much in the mold, say, of President Obama, who once lectured the justices in his State of the Union speech. 

The 47th president’s criticism of the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group, was especially shocking given that in his first term he appointed to the bench three justices whom the group endorsed — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Jurists of an originalist bent recommended, to him, by the society now sit at all levels of the federal judiciary.

It is not yet clear, though, whether Mr. Trump’s beef is with the conservative legal movement writ large or rather with an emerging pattern whereby judges and justices recommended by the Federalist Society are voting with the liberal factions in the court against his conservative agenda. 

Buyer’s remorse is reportedly growing at the White House. CNN reports that the president “has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda.” The network reports that he has directed “particular ire” at Justice Barrett. She has ruled against Mr. Trump on a federal spending freeze as well as on his use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

Justice Barrett recused herself from a landmark religious liberty case in Oklahoma. At issue was a religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which sought to join the state-wide charter system. The Sooner State’s cupreme court ruled that to admit it would violate the First Amendment. Justice Barrett’s recusal — failure to do her duty to sit — means that the ruling against St. Isidore stands. It could be argued that the conservative in the case, not Justice Barrett but the Catholic school, was stranded.

Justice Barrett also voted — with Chief Justice Roberts — against delaying Mr. Trump’s sentencing until after inauguration in his criminal hush money case in New York. Mr. Trump was eventually sentenced by Judge Juan Merchan to an “unconditional discharge,” meaning that no further punishment was prescribed.

Justice Barrett appeared to eye the 47th president warily when the two met at his joint address to Congress. A former senior adviser to Mr. Trump, Stephen Bannon, described that glance as “about as close to stink eye as you can get. I’ve had a couple of my ex-wives look at me like that.”

It would be a mistake, though, to count Justice Barrett as the new Justice David Souter, who was named to the bench by President H.W. Bush but by the end of his time on the court sided most frequently with his liberal colleagues. Justice Barrett concurred with the conservatives in Trump V. United States, the landmark ruling on presidential immunity, and in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. 

The prompt for Mr. Trump’s broadside against Mr. Leo appears to have been an adverse ruling against his tariffs not from the Nine, but from the obscure but powerful United States Court of International Trade, which ruled that Mr. Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on “Liberation Day.” Much to the relief of the White House, that ruling was stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pending a decision on the merits. 

While Mr. Leo has not weighed in on the constitutionality of the tariffs, his co-chairman of the Federalist Society board, Steven Calabresi, put his John Hancock on an amicus brief to the trade court that takes the position: “The powers to tax, to regulate commerce and to shape the nation’s economic course must remain with Congress.” It was co-signed by a roster of conservative legal luminaries.   

Mr. Trump’s attack on Mr. Leo — and the reports of his grumbling about Justice Barrett behind the scenes — could signal a sea change in how his administration will approach appointing judges. Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social that he leaned on Mr. Leo when he was “new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use the Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges.”

Now Mr. Trump laments that the Federalist Society gave him “bad advice” on “numerous” judicial nominations. While the 47th president did not mention Justice Barrett, she has attracted vociferous criticism from his MAGA supporters, who increasingly see her as an unreliable vote for his agenda on the high court. One personality with the ear of the president, Laura Loomer, calls Justice Barrett a “DEI hire.”

Now, though, Mr. Trump could be attuned to different voices. One could be the leader of the Article III Project, Mike Davis. His group describes itself as bringing “brass knuckles to fight leftist lawfare.” Mr. Davis has called for Special Counsel Jack Smith and Attorney General Letitia James to be criminally prosecuted. The Article III Project, like the Federalist Society, backed the confirmation of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 

Now, though, Mr. Davis tells the Hill that the Federalist Society “abandoned President Trump during the lawfare against him … not only did they abandon him — they had several FedSoc leaders who participated in the lawfare and threw gas on the fire.” 

A spokesman for the president, Harrison Fields, insists Mr. Trump “will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party. … The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.”