since Donald Trump He was elected for the first time as president, in 2016, authoritarian scientists warned that American democracy was being threatened. On various occasions, this threat was defined as a “constitutional crisis”, which generally indicates a branch of the government that defies or rape the constitutional authorities of another branch. (Certainly, one of them has happened if Mike Pence refused to ratify the election results for the year 2020.) In recent weeks, there are a number of law professors. Call The term tried to describe the current moment, in which the Trump administration launched government employees who have protection from the civil service imposed by Congress, to end the recovered citizenship despite its guarantee from the constitution, and issued an executive order postponed a law issued by Congress on the sale of Tijoc.
When the courts issue orders that stop or adhere to a number of Trump’s actions, the seismic conflict is likely to wait. On Monday, a federal judge in Rod Island spent Trump refusing to completely comply with his order to release federal grant funds that the administration tried to freeze. It is still unclear whether the administration will respond beyond a call, which is what it did, and loud attacks on the judiciary, which it also did. But during the weekend, Vice President JD Vance It was published on X, saying: “Judges are not allowed to control the legitimate authority of the executive authority.” If the administration begins to publicly refuse to comply with the provisions of the Federal Court, this will certainly be qualified as a major crisis.
I recently spoken by phone with Christina Rodriguez, a professor at the Law College at Yale University and an expert in the semester of the authorities. During our conversation, which was edited for length and clarity, we discussed the reason for the seriousness of this moment, whether the courts have any authority to impose their orders, and why Congress chose not to exercise its constitutional powers.
Is there any date of the presidents who ignore the orders of the court?
Examples often are not an explicit challenge of court orders. They are offered, and perhaps contempt for the Supreme Court, but each of the examples generally includes the president resists the logic of the Supreme Court in some way.
After the Supreme Court announced, in Duraid Scott’s decision, that blacks could not be citizens in the United States, the Ibrahim Lincoln administration continued to issue passports to blacks, which requires citizenship. So it is an effective denial of Scott, but it was not a rejection of the basic system. Or the famous example Andrew Jackson took: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him impose it,” maybe he did not really say it, and did not include a court order issued to Jackson. Jackson included a refusal to enforce the court against Georgia, which the Supreme Court found to wander and so Jackson shows the lack of respect for the court, and of course the federal government later forced the Sheroki from the southeast completely on the path of tears, but it is not a challenge to the court order issued to Jackson. Other examples that people raise have a similar quality.
What about Lincoln during the Civil War?
So the example that appears regarding Lincoln is that it is assumed that he challenged the court order that he required to release John Merryman from detention. John Meriman was a member of the Maryland militia who was detained on the accusation that he was burning bridges to try to prevent the union forces from passing. In the decision, [Chief Justice Roger B.] Tani, who sits as a lower judge in court, says detention is illegal. Taney does not already issue something calling for Merryman’s executive release. He says arrest is illegal, and he hopes that the president will abide by his constitutional responsibilities.
Lincoln does not respond to this, but instead delivers a message to Congress, and that is when he makes his famous statement, “All laws but one is still not exciting, and the government itself goes to parts, for fear that one will violate?” So Lincoln resists determination by again , Who sits as a judge in the lower court, that he was unconstitutional commenting in the matter of the beloved. Tani only says that Congress can do so, but Lincoln says, in fact, the president can do this, and I have to do this to save the union. There is no challenge, but it is a challenge to the judge and his conclusions about the law.
Is it fair to say that in the modern era there are no truly qualified examples?
I think this is true. There are many examples written by scientists about agency officials who do not completely comply with the orders of the court or even presidents who criticize the Supreme Court or announce that the opinion of the Supreme Court is incorrect, but most resistance to the views of the Supreme Court or take the rulings with a low court form the form of slow walking for treatment or attempt The law pushed the direction preferred by the executive branch. It is not an explicit challenge to the law.
I will not say that this type of slow or incomplete compliance with the widespread or common court orders. It often arises because it is difficult to implement the court when dealing with a technical issue. For example, it may be difficult for government officials to reorganize or change the law, but it is not known that there is incomplete compliance due to the nature of the judicial decision, which is a declaration that something complicated I do in the first place should be backward.
What are the treatments that the courts have if the Trump administration does not correspond to these provisions?
The courts do not have many powerful treatments against an executive official ready to challenge their orders. They can definitely recall it. They can say that it is a basic proposal to comply with all the orders and rulings of the courts, and they can threaten to retain government officials. This is a useful treatment against agency officials, because it is a deterrent, and there are costs of contempt. But if you have high -ranking officials who announce their intention to challenge the courts’ orders for the age of their agenda because they believe that these orders are illegal or are based on wrong understandings of the constitution, I am not sure that their threats to the officials are great. The reality is that the courts often maintain the officials of contempt. The Supreme Court only once protested, and therefore it is a difficult threat to achieve. Many depend on the psychology of people who claim to resist the court.
If the officials are kept in contempt, will it be among the persons in a government agency that the court was doing something illegal, or will the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice defend this in the court? Or another person?
It depends on the context. Sometimes, the courts threaten the lawyers to retain themselves if there is a belief on the part of the court that lawyers do not comply with what the court requested in the first place. Sometimes, perhaps often, it may be running to the agency official, but it may be difficult to know who is the correct official who will carry it in contempt, who is already resisting the implementation of the matter. Sometimes there is no one. It is an office or a group of people responsible for implementing the matter and unable to do so. They may keep the agency’s head of contempt, and if there is a statement by a high -ranking political official who, in fact, they intend to resist the court’s order, perhaps the contempt for this person is issued. But when the risks become higher, the ability to control government behavior by the court becomes more difficult, because you rise the chain and become more clear.
