In his second term, Trump has tested the rule of law, a vital and fundamental pillar of American democracy, as never before.
At times, he has appeared to push the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis, flirting with open defiance of the judiciary, pushing for the abolition of long-standing rights like birthright citizenship and suggesting US citizens convicted of violent crime could be shipped to jails overseas.
In the process, he has made strikingly personal attacks on judges whose rulings he disagreed with, while some senior White House officials have suggested those rulings can be ignored.
Earlier this month, one federal judge concluded that the Trump administration’s “reckless disregard” for his order in a deportation case offered probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt.
The president — the first convicted felon to serve in the White House — has also moved to settle scores with major law firms who have crossed swords with him in the past.
By executive order, he has deprived some firms of security clearances needed to consult protected information, restricted their access to certain buildings and officials, and cut them off from federal contracts.
Several have pushed back with lawsuits, but around a dozen have given in, offering free representation — worth nearly $1 billion in total — for causes dear to the administration, such as cases involving police or first responders.
‘Breathtaking’
The government’s behavior has been “breathtaking in its audacity and lack of decorum,” according to retired federal judge John Jones — who was appointed by Republican president George W. Bush.
“It’s unlike anything I have ever seen from the Justice Department,” Jones told CNN.
The Trump administration is now the subject of close to 190 lawsuits — and federal judges across the country have temporarily blocked key elements of the government agenda, including anti-diversity initiatives, a pause on refugee admissions and a freeze on most federal grant spending.
Some cases have already reached the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, resulting in a number of decisions — both in favor of and against the administration.
At the heart of much of the wrangling between Trump and the courts is the extent to which the judiciary is able to step in on matters of national policy.
Where the courts say they are exercising necessary checks and balances, the president argues that liberal judges are abusing their powers to curb his legitimate executive authority.
The White House argument is in line with a conservative legal doctrine known as the “unitary executive theory” under which the president holds the sole authority over the executive branch.
“My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the US Supreme Court,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Monday.
‘Lawless regimes’
In a recent dissenting opinion on a deportation case, Sonia Sotomayor, one of the Supreme Court’s three progressive justices, issued a stark warning of the consequences when judicial review is denied or ignored.
“History is no stranger to such lawless regimes,” Sotomayor wrote. “But this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise,” she said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next month on Trump’s bid to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil — a move that has been blocked by several federal judges.
Rather than assessing the constitutionality of the move, the hearing will focus on the technical but crucial issue of whether lower courts actually have the right to order nationwide injunctions that pause the president’s policies.
Clark Neily of the libertarian Cato Institute believes the Trump administration is exploiting what he views as the courts’ inability to stand their ground.
“The judiciary has helped create what amounts to an accountability-free playground for govt officials who abuse their powers and violate people’s rights,” Neily wrote on X.
“And wow, this administration is exploring that space like a coked-up spider monkey.”
At times, he has appeared to push the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis, flirting with open defiance of the judiciary, pushing for the abolition of long-standing rights like birthright citizenship and suggesting US citizens convicted of violent crime could be shipped to jails overseas.
In the process, he has made strikingly personal attacks on judges whose rulings he disagreed with, while some senior White House officials have suggested those rulings can be ignored.
Earlier this month, one federal judge concluded that the Trump administration’s “reckless disregard” for his order in a deportation case offered probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt.
The president — the first convicted felon to serve in the White House —
has also moved to settle
scores with major law firms who have crossed swords with him in the past.
By executive order, he has deprived some firms of security clearances needed to consult protected information, restricted their access to certain buildings and officials, and cut them off from federal contracts.
Several have pushed back with lawsuits, but around a dozen have given in, offering free representation — worth nearly $1 billion in total — for causes dear to the administration, such as cases involving police or first responders.
‘Breathtaking’
The government’s behavior has been “breathtaking in its audacity and lack of decorum,” according to retired federal judge John Jones — who was appointed by Republican president George W. Bush.
“It’s unlike anything I have ever seen from the Justice Department,” Jones told CNN.
The Trump administration is now the subject of close to 190 lawsuits — and federal judges across the country have temporarily blocked key elements of the government agenda, including anti-diversity initiatives, a pause on refugee admissions and a freeze on most federal grant spending.
Some cases have already reached the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, resulting in a number of decisions — both in favor of and against the administration.
At the heart of much of the wrangling between Trump and the courts is the extent to which the judiciary is able to step in on matters of national policy.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
Where the courts say they are exercising necessary checks and balances, the president argues that liberal judges are abusing their powers to curb his legitimate executive authority.
The White House argument is in line with a conservative legal doctrine known as the “unitary executive theory” under which the president holds the sole authority over the executive branch.
“My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the US Supreme Court,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Monday.
‘Lawless regimes’
In a recent dissenting opinion on a deportation case, Sonia Sotomayor, one of the Supreme Court’s three progressive justices, issued a stark warning of the consequences when judicial review is denied or ignored.
“History is no stranger to such lawless regimes,” Sotomayor wrote. “But this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise,” she said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral
arguments next month on Trump’s
bid to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil — a move that has been blocked by several federal judges.
Rather than assessing the constitutionality of the move, the hearing will focus on the technical but crucial issue of whether lower courts actually have the right to order nationwide injunctions that pause the president’s policies.
Clark Neily of the libertarian Cato Institute believes the Trump administration is exploiting what he views as the courts’ inability to stand their ground.
“The judiciary has helped create what amounts to an accountability-free playground for govt officials who abuse their powers and violate people’s rights,” Neily wrote on X.
“And wow, this administration is exploring that space like a coked-up spider monkey.”
By AFP