CNN
–
Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk, and others in the Trump administration are openly challenging the centuries-old power of the judiciary of the country, foreseeing the possibility of a constitutional collapse of the US government. .
It’s not just that the new administration has downplayed federal law rafts and encouraged a flood of legal challenges. Some of Donald Trump’s top advisors have questioned whether the rulings in those cases would constrain the president.
There are indications that the judge’s order is being ignored. On Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island found the administration violated the “plain text” of previous orders that freed billions of dollars with federal aid. The judge directed the funds to return to blocked environment, health and other programs.
In another incident Monday, in Washington, D.C., a federal employee told a judge that the administration had failed to revive USAID workers who took leave.
When fighting the case, the Justice Department says the president should have the power to decide how the government operates, and judges remain in excess.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may have predicted the event’s turn six weeks ago. At the end of December, they may have warned that “officials elected from the entire political spectrum have raised the ghost of ignoring federal court decisions.” These dangerous suggestions, even sporadic, must be firmly rejected. ”
The rule of law and commitment to the judicial authorities are fascinated by the American way of life and track the creation of the three-tier federal bench in 1789.
Historically, the administrative department has been following Supreme Court resolutions, even after fighting the lawsuits fiercely. One notable example is that in 1974, President Richard Nixon first refused to abandon the recording of an oval office tape during an investigation into Watergate, but when the Supreme Court ruled against him. It occurred when it complied.
Rebellion was a two-episode involving President Andrew Jackson refusing to enforce Cherokee cases and refusing to suspend civil wars in President Abraham Lincoln’s civil war, as two episodes stand out in the 1800s. stands out.
“That won’t happen,” Gillian Metzger, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University, said Monday. “But it doesn’t happen because there are very deep standards of the rule of law and commitment to the rule of law. … If it reaches when government administrative agencies refuse to comply with court orders, I would say. They are truly in a “constitutional crisis” and at that point the president is violating his duty of “care.” ”
Among the specific obligations under Article II of the Constitution, the President “must be aware that the law is faithfully enforced.”
Despite their status fading and flowing, federal judges have benefited from institutional respect for centuries. But Trump’s early inauguration week suddenly raised the prospects of a disobedience and constitutional collapse of court orders.
Many of Trump’s executive orders undoubtedly violate federal laws, including, for example, cutting off Congress mandated funds and unfounded dismissal of senior staff. With numerous executive orders facing early court scrutiny, top Trump advisors have questioned whether a judge can stop any of his agendas.
“If a judge tries to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it’s illegal,” Vance said in a post on X. illegal. Judges are not permitted to control the legitimate power of executives. ”
Vance previously ignored the High Court decision and declared on a 2021 podcast that Trump could respond to saying, “as Andrew Jackson did, “The Supreme Court judged him.” Now, let him force it. ”
Scholars say that the commonly called line, due to John Marshall’s Jackson after the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling, is probably apocryphal.
“This quote isn’t very suitable here,” added Professor Alison Lacroix, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. “There were no orders issued to President Jackson, they were issued to Georgia,” he claimed authority over the Cherokee members who live there. (The Supreme Court held that federal jurisdiction was exclusive, so Georgia lacked the authority to control the Cherokees. However, Jackson, who sought “removal of India,” urged the “removal of India,” had not yet been able to enforce the order. He refused and instead sent troops to force the Cherokee to be removed. It became known as the “Path of Tears.”)
Meanwhile, Trump on Monday slammed his criticism of the judicial system, criticizing the judge for hoping to “tell everyone how to run the country.”
“The judge should be ruled. Trump told radio host Mark Levin in an interview that aired Monday night.
Calling for a ball and a strike
More suited to today’s controversy, Lacroix called the concept of a judge “judgment.” This is the concept she said that before Roberts used the Philosopher at the 2005 Senate Confirmation Hearing, it existed in legal history.
“What we see as the administration is doing now is essentially saying there is no judgement,” Lacroix said. And they don’t need to pay attention to what other players are doing or officials. And while it is just the opposite of the constitution in that text, there is also precedent. ”
Vance is a graduate of Yale Law School, as well as his wife Usha, who served as Secretary Roberts’ law clerk during the 2017-2018 session. Both Vances would have been exposed to a entrenched academic understanding of judicial hegemony.
An unknown story of this historical photograph
“At the very least throughout the 20th century, the resolved understanding was that the president and other officials were an obligation to agree to the Supreme Court’s decision,” says Harvard Law Professor Richard Fallon. said Professor Richard Fallon, who specializes in. . “If the President wants to follow, it will be a profound consequent step that challenges our understanding of what the rule of law requires.”
It is said that Alexander Hamilton is often adapted. Unlike the enforcement and legislative sectors, the judiciary is said to have no power from the “sword” or “wallet.” However, the third branch has acquired sufficient public respect and moral authority to comply with its judgment since its creation in the late 18th century.
The test for that power as the ultimate arbitrator of the law was the 1803 case of Mulberry v. Madison, which reviewed the actions of Congress and established the court’s authority to overthrow those deemed unconstitutional.
If people refused to comply with court orders, the judges administered a fine for emptting or evaluating them. President Dwight Eisenhower is a dramatic move to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, where Arkansas Governor Oval Faubus opposes a court-ordered segregation plan, with nine blacks Federal forces were sent to Little Rock to prevent students from entering the country. Chuo High School.
In these early weeks of Trump’s second term, U.S. District Court judges are the first scope of US justice – transforming the federal workforce, freezing government funds, and the country’s immigration policy It has begun to hinder efforts to re-examine.
On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily restricted Musk’s government efficiency team, bringing access to the Treasury’s payment system, covering Social Security benefits and federal employee pay, among other payments.
Musk responded by calling the judge “corruption” and saying “it needs to be fired each.”
This story has been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
