Why president, chief justice are clashing over Supreme Court seat

President Lee Jae Myung and Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, at odds for more than a year, are now locked in their most direct confrontation yet over the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

Cheong Wa Dae said Friday it would not submit a confirmation motion to the National Assembly for Sohn Bong-ki, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, and asked the chief justice to recommend another candidate.

Senior presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said the powers to recommend and appoint justices are “assigned to different constitutional institutions,” arguing that Cho’s authority should respect the president’s substantive appointment power.

The main opposition People Power Party (PPP) says that would undermine the chief justice’s constitutional authority and threaten judicial independence.

But the dispute did not begin with Sohn’s nomination. Its roots go back to a Supreme Court ruling just weeks before the 2025 presidential election that threw Lee’s campaign into uncertainty.

Roots of conflict

On March 26, 2025, the Seoul High Court acquitted Lee, then the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) presidential front-runner, of violating the Public Official Election Act, overturning his conviction by a lower court.

The Supreme Court then moved at an unusually fast pace. It referred the case to its full bench on April 22. Lee was formally nominated as the DPK’s presidential candidate on April 27. Two days later, the court announced it would rule on May 1.

The full bench overturned Lee’s acquittal and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court, finding that some of his statements violated the law. The ruling came 36 days after the appeals court decision and 33 days before the presidential election.

The timing immediately became a political issue. The DPK accused Cho and the Supreme Court of trying to influence the election.

The Supreme Court rejected the criticism, saying it had conducted a “swift and intensive” review in line with the country's election law, which calls for election-related trials to be handled faster than ordinary criminal cases.

The ruling deepened distrust between the DPK and the judiciary. The party stepped up its push to expand the Supreme Court and allow constitutional complaints against court rulings. Other measures, including a law penalizing judicial distortion and a special court for insurrection cases, later became part of its judicial reform drive.

The ruling bloc says the changes are needed for accountability and citizens’ rights. Judicial officials have raised concerns that some could undermine judicial independence.

Cho publicly voiced concerns. In February, he described constitutional complaints against court rulings and Supreme Court expansion as matters affecting “a major pillar of the Constitution and the national order,” and called for extensive public discussion.

Nomination showdown

Tensions resurfaced with the Lee administration’s first Supreme Court appointment.

A recommendation committee on Jan. 21 shortlisted four candidates to succeed Justice Rho Tae-ak, who was due to retire in March. While the chief justice has the constitutional power to nominate justices, presidents and chief justices have traditionally consulted together before making a final choice.

This time, no agreement was reached for nearly seven months. The presidential office was reported to favor Kim Min-ki, a Seoul High Court judge regarded as relatively progressive.

Cho eventually nominated Sohn in writing on Aug. 18. The presidential office viewed the move as a failure to follow procedural requirements and, after reviewing the matter, declined to forward Sohn’s confirmation motion to the Assembly.

The standoff now raises questions about the limits of the president’s appointment power and the chief justice’s nomination authority.

Article 104 of the Constitution states that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the chief justice and with the consent of the National Assembly.

Kang said asking for another nominee does not replace or neutralize the president’s appointment power, but instead helps ensure that it is “properly exercised.”

The PPP countered that if the president can refuse a candidate and demand someone else, the chief justice’s recommendation authority becomes meaningless. The party has accused Lee of trying to shape the Supreme Court to his liking.

Cho has yet to say whether he will comply with Lee's request. Leaving work Friday, he said he was reviewing the request and would announce an official position this week.