WASHINGTON – The country is approaching a constitutional crisis as White House officials bliss a series of court orders blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda, sparking fears that they might ignore judicial decisions It may be.
A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Monday that the Trump administration had not complied with temporarily suspending fundraising freezes on his previous directive, and told Trump and his top officials, “I of the Law.” The decisions made and people who refuse to obey reminded them in harsh words. Orders generally risk criminal contrarians.”
District Judge John McConnell’s order follows other legal setbacks that question Trump’s plans to scale back and remake the federal government, end birthright citizenship and curb spending.
At the very least, the ruling suggests that diverse Trump initiatives will be delayed, even if they are not completely blocked, as lawsuits filed by opponents work up the judiciary ladder rung.
Trump administration officials said they weren’t necessarily surprised. They said they expected the court to loom as a barrier.
“The court is expected to do this,” a White House official familiar with Trump’s ideas told NBC News. “The unfortunate part is time to wait to reach the Superior Court, and even the Supreme Court, if necessary.”
“We note that we will draft an executive order text to realize the possibility of successful court agendas, which is an occupational risk,” added the person.
The rest of the White House were even more annoyed. I responded to a social media post from Pete Battigeg, a senior White House aide Stephen Miller, Biden administration’s Secretary of Transportation. Do you manage the entire enforcement department that affects 300 (million) citizens? ”
In his own Sunday social media post, Vice President JD Vance wrote, “The judges are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives.”
“If a judge tries to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it’s illegal,” he wrote. “If a judge attempts to order the Attorney General about how he uses his discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”
Vance did not specify any particular judicial ruling. His office referred the White House press to inquiries but did not respond to requests for comment.
Allies of the GOP Senate have expressed support.
The White House was asked if it had the right to circumvent a judge who has stopped Trump’s enforcement actions, said R-Ala.
Vance’s post raised the illusion of a potential showdown between the Trump administration and the independent and comparable branch of the government: the courts. Over two centuries of US history establishes that it is empowered to prohibit laws and enforcement actions that courts deem unconstitutional.
Contrary to the court orders Trump disliked, it would overturn the country’s sensitive system of checks and balance without any obvious remedies.
Alberto Gonzalez, Republican Attorney General of President George W. Bush, told NBC News:
“The court will ultimately decide what is illegal or unconstitutional, not the vice president or president. In that sense, the court has the final say in what is legitimate power of the executives. They exercise some control.”
Ammunition each seems unlikely as Republicans control both the House and its Senate, and so far Republicans have controlled little desire to ignore Trump. It is practically impossible to jail a sitting president. Trump was defied last year in a criminal trial in New York, but when he was still a candidate rather than an incumbent, State Judge Juan Merchant said he would use the strongest enforcement power at his freedom. He seemed reluctant to do so.
Theoretically, judges could fine the government, but it’s hard to imagine a judge filing a lawsuit with unlimited resources.
“The Vance debate is totally beneficial to me, like a strong hint that the White House and its (Elon) Musk forces plan to ignore,” said the Lawrence Tribe, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. No, and said it was completely merit-free and sounded. The court ruling found that they either found it inconvenient or hostile to the agenda of the acquisition.”
Trump has a long history of controversial dealings with judges who hindered him. When crossed, he was not hesitant to pay the light corn, even when they held his destiny in his hand.
In Merchant’s previous case, Trump called him “bias and conflict.” He also targeted Merchant’s daughter.
It is unclear whether Trump will diss the judge by name again, but administrative authorities said in an interview that nothing is off the table.
“You’ll have to wait and see,” the person said.
More than Congressional Democrats, judges now exist as the biggest threat to Trump’s policy blueprint. That may not be a coincidence.
Democrats worked to stock the judges and courts of their choice during Joe Biden’s presidency, as they would when the presidents of both parties came to power.
By the time Biden resigned, the Democratic-led Senate had confirmed 235 judicial candidates.
New York Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hinted at the scorecard in a letter he sent to a colleague on Monday.
“The courts are the primary line of defense in blocking this administration’s illegal activities,” he wrote. “For the past four years, Senate Democrats have done historic work to rebuild federal justice.”
US District Judge Paul A. Engelmeyer issued an emergency order last week that temporarily blocked Musk and his associates with Trump Department’s government efficiency.
In response, Mask wrote to X that the judge was to “protect corruption” and that “we need to have each bullet right now!”
Advisors to the Trump administration expressed dissatisfaction with the judicial agency being too involved in the administrative department.
“This judge clearly doesn’t give us s about the law, so what should we do – wait until two-thirds of the majority in the Senate to remove them?” the advisor said, I mentioned the requirements for each bullet. “The unconstitutional innovation here comes from the judiciary, not from the administrative body.”
Additionally, District Judge Carl Nichols issued a temporary restraining order last week prohibiting the U.S. International Development Agency from placing more than 2,000 workers on paid leave.
Aid agencies say efforts to reduce USAID already have “fatal consequences.”
And on Monday, US District Judge George O’Toole Jr. temporarily suspended the Trump administration’s plan to provide federal workers with massive shopping. As of Monday, 60,000 federal workers had accepted the contract, executive officials told NBC News.
“I don’t know how we can lose such a case,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after the verdict, saying, “I was elected to make the government better, more efficient and smaller.” That’s what we’re doing.”
Past presidents were also plagued by court rulings that derailed their agenda. After winning reelection in 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to cram more justice into the Supreme Court, hoping to dilute the power of those who had broken his new contract reforms. It is famous for its. The effort failed.
If Trump refuses a court decision, it will clash with the core concept of the rule of law, far beyond Roosevelt’s unfortunate court packaging scheme.
In an interview, Matthew Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General and one of the plaintiffs in the expenditure freeze case, said: On the first day of law school, the court decides what the laws of this country are. ”
In a statement Monday, the American Bar Association portrayed the Trump administration as ignoring its enthusiasm for transforming the government.
“In the last 21 days, more than 12 cases have been filed claiming that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are against the US constitution or law. The list is longer every day.” The statement said.
“These cases forced the affected parties to seek relief as a breakwater for these violations. We stand by courts that deal with these cases in urgency. “It’s,” it said.
Another word of caution came from Steve Bannon, the White House chief strategist in Trump’s first term.
Bannon, the host of the “Warroom” podcast and leader of Trump’s Magazine movement, called Judge McConnell a “hack,” but said Trump should follow the order during the appeal.
“My natural tendencies and facts are that President Trump should definitely ignore it, and the frontlines of his executives should be prepared to actually go to prison for a petty charge,” Congress said. Bannon, who was jailed last year for light emptying, said. .
However, he can prove self-destruction in the long run, as Supreme Court Judges John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett won’t reward Trump for his rebellious stance against the lower court. he said.
“You’re going to win this merit, so smarter strategies are quick appeals and (Supreme Court emergency dockets,” Bannon said. “If you ignore it, you’ll be Roberts or Connie・You’ll lose Umips like Barrett.”
