In the first decision of the Supreme Court of Trump years, in 2018, the chief judge John Roberts established how the hostile president towards a group of non -citizens may prevent them under the current immigration laws, as long as the president publicly announced is “neutral in the face.” If this test is fulfilled, the courts must bow to the president, regardless of evidence of any prior hostility towards the relevant group. At that time, President Donald Trump issued a declaration prohibiting citizens who were from many Islamic majority countries-the third repetition of the so-called Islamic ban, which was stuck by many minimum courts. Trump justified his actions by summoning the immigration and nationality law. Roberts books The relevant section of the law “exudes respect for the president in every sentence.” Since the announcement was “at the heart of executive responsibility,” Roberts wrote in his opinion, the court must only consider the statements of a specific president, but also the presidential authority itself.
If there is one person in the court, Trump owes debts with gratitude for his second empowerment, which was designed in the semester, which has so far been distinguished by a large number of executive orders who insist, in their text, provided that they declare “the constitution and the laws of the United States”-it is Roberts. His jurisprudence related to the presidential authorities according to Article Two of the Constitution, which wears the executive authority in one CEO, represents the purest distillation Unified executive theory. This constitutional school of thought, which sees that everyone and everything in the executive authority must surrender to the president, has long been fascinated by conservative legal academics and republican presidential departments, starting with Ronald Reagan, who was served by Roberts, as a lawyer in the White House.
At the end of Trump’s speech to Congress earlier this month, the president was arrested on the camera Eavesdropping Roberts on the shoulder, thank him, and tells him that he “will not forget”. Many interpreted Trump’s words as a reference to the Roberts gift in the Trump case against the United States, last summer, giving the president the wide immunity of the criminal prosecution over his alleged incitement to the attack on January 6 on the Capitol. (Trump later claimed that he was thanking Roberts for the oath on the opening day.
But gratitude must be much deeper. Within approximately twenty years as president of judges, Roberts adopted a comprehensive vision of the presidential authority – sometimes with a wide language to the point that the Congress appears and the courts appear to appear small in comparison. “The president is the only person to be alone with a branch of the government,” Roberts Declare During the first period of Trump, when the House of Representatives was trying to call the tax -related documents from an accounting company that was dealing with Trump and his family. In 2020, he wrote, in 2020, the Malian Protection Office for Consumers, “The entire” Executive Authority “belongs to the president alone. NullifyAs a violation of the separation of the authorities, a law that protects the director of CFPB from presidential control. Early from Roberts, in A. issue By dealing with the protection of the removal of the lower level officials, the chief judge sent that a future president will be constitutionally protected from scrutiny of the collective shooting order for employees throughout the government: “The president cannot intend to implement the laws honestly” if he cannot oversee the sincerity of the employees who implement them, “Roberts wrote, during Oba Era.
Trump’s embrace of this broad concept of executive authority was presented last week in Washington, where his administration defended its protest of the centuries-old foreign enemies’ law to deport Venezuelan immigrants, and to release it to two Democrats members of the Federal Trade Committee, and took it as the unknown institute for the United States for peace-to designate three executive measures that hold the head lines. Each of these things represents a breathtaking practice of the executive authority, which necessarily puts the president in a collision cycle with the courts and Congress – and if Roberts’s view is transferred to its logical end, the executive branch must prevail.
Looking at the arguments that the officials of the Ministry of Justice It was presented In front of the American boycott judge, James Bomsberg, who supervises a legal challenge for Trump advertisement The members of Tren De Aragua, a national gang of nationalism from Venezuela, are “foreign enemies” undergoing immediate detention and deportation without due legal procedures. Declaration that calls for war time livelihood Its conditions require a declared war, a “invisible invasion or incursion”, and faced a rapid challenge by migrant rights groups. During the emergency session on the day when the announcement became public, while there is still little clarity about the date of its signing or who was targeting it, and he is the lawyer of the Ministry of Justice Proposal The attempt to prevent any deportation is caused by the declaration of “discounts at the core of powers in the second article of the president”, and this “interference” with these effects on the presidential concession on his authority over foreign policy, making war and immigration. Boasberg prevented the deportation anyway, as he requested any planes that may be in the air carrying the two departments to return during the litigation. This emphasis on the judiciary started continuous The clash between the administration and the judiciary – and raised questions about compliance with the orders of the court, the contempt of the court, and whether the re -account of the administration in the face of everything means a The constitutional crisis in the future. In one file, the government Complain The “powers of the second article inherent in the president, especially when practicing outside the United States, are not subject to judicial review or intervention.”
During a hearing in the afternoon last Friday, Basburg seemed determined to see if the government had challenged his order: “I will reach the bottom if it violates my request, and who ordered that and what are the consequences,” he is. ” He said. Earlier in the hearing, he said it “represents a problem and anxiety” that more than a hundred Veneers were considered deportation as foreign enemies without even an opportunity to challenge this appointment.
The deposits on the case, known as JGG V. Donald Trump, fast and angry, but it is clear that the Ministry of Justice is betting that its assertion on Trump’s authority for the second article, and its authority under the law of foreign enemies – which was not president. Call Since World War II – the preparation of the courts, which is ruled by Article Three. How do the humble federal judge dare intervene in the president’s authority to conduct foreign affairs? “What started as a dispute between the litigants about the president’s authority to protect national security and the administration of foreign relations of the United States according to both the Congress license for a long time. books In a foot suggestion last week. This suggestion concluded that “the court has now spent more time trying to get rid of information about the government schedules in the government and its relations with foreign countries more than it was in investigating the facts before ratifying the collective lawsuit in this case.”
On Monday, Boasberg issued an accurate opinion of the “complex legal cases” raised by the case, to rule People who are under the Trump advertisement cannot be briefly deported without a hearing. Later that day, the Trump administration was summoned, in line with the deadline of Pasperberg’s cleanliness regarding not compliance with his previous orders, in the second article and the state’s secret concession instead. This is: Boasberg will not get the details he is looking for. In an exhibition of unit, Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, Minister of Internal Security Christie, and Prosecutor Pam Bondi Al -Imtia, summoned three right -wing ads. “The court has all the facts it needs to address compliance cases before it,” the Ministry of Justice He said In the notification of the court accompanying the ads. “More interference in the executive branch would provide serious and completely unjustified damage regarding diplomatic and national security concerns that the court lacks efficiency to address it.”
For the sake of support, the administration raised the language from the immunity decision Roberts: “President Trump’s execution of the authorities of Article Two – which” of gravity and expansion that is unparalleled “includes” managing matters related to terrorism … and immigration ” – requires” maximum and sensitivity. “
The classes above this successor between lawyers and judges were the calls for the accountability of Boasberg, led by the president himself and their amplification MagaThe ball is ready and ready to go. Amid this anger, Roberts issued a rare statement that many described as “rebuke“For the president.” For more than two centuries, it has been proven that the dismissal is not an appropriate response to the dispute regarding a judicial decision, “Roberts said.
This statement, as a majestic and not binding on its intended goal I am free Roberts released during his term, it can be read as a moderate defense of the branch that is leading him, which is now being attacked. Other judges definitely annoyed By Blitzkrieg’s executive and media authority against one of their own. But Roberts’s statement blocks his legal jurisprudence, Trump’s challenge to other branches of the government.
In letters informing FTC Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Siloter that they had been removed from their positions, the president frankly on membership Statute From the committee, which is decided by Congress, it is allowed to remove the commissioners only “for the inadequacy, neglect of duty or violations in his position.” Instead, Trump referred to his agenda. “Your continuous service on FTC does not agree with the priorities of my administration,” you read one of the messages, According to To New York Times. As with the invitation of the Law of Foreign Enemies, the last time the president tried to launch a delegate regarding the mere political differences during the Roosevelt administration. As President Franklin Dylano Roosevelt books For nearly ninety years, Commissioner William Humphrey, “I do not feel your mind and mind together on policies or the management of the Federal Trade Committee.”
