Constitutional Crisis
Trump's Defiance of Court Orders is a clear and present danger to our Democratic Principles
Less than two months into his term in office, Donald Trump has brought our country and its judicial system to the brink of constitutional crisis. Last Friday, Trump quietly signed one of his many executive orders—this one invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The government shamefully used this law to imprison Japanese American citizens in detention camps during World War II. The Act permits the detention and expulsion of citizens from nations or countries at war with the United States. It has only been used during wars and only three times in American history.
Why a constitutional crisis, you ask? On Saturday evening, before any of the immigrants landed in their native countries, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the use of the over 200-year-old Alien Enemies Act to deport people without a hearing. He further ordered aircraft carrying these immigrants to be turned around and returned to the United States. At the time the judge made the order., none of the planes carrying the immigrants in question had landed. One had not yet taken off. But Donald Trump didn’t care. He ordered planes to continue to their destinations under his agreement with the Salvadoran President.
Here’s the problem: Trump’s executive order does not apply to citizens of a country waging war against the United States. Trump invoked the law to deport gang members to El Salvador and Venezuela. Last I checked, America was not at war with these countries. Trump tries to argue that the U.S. does face a “war” of sorts, an “invasion” from gangs from the two countries mentioned earlier. The argument is ridiculous, and two court orders barred him from deporting people without due process. Despite these court orders, Trump expelled 261 immigrants over the weekend, applying the Act to 137.
To make matters worse, an emboldened Trump and his merry men were not content with merely defying the order. Several administration members, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, mocked the judge on social media. And because of last year’s ruling on immunity, the new President is probably immune from prosecution or legal consequences for his actions. The only viable solution? Impeachment. Will Trump’s fellow Republicans grow a set and decide that their loyalties and oaths are to the Constitution? Or will they bend the knee to the Dictator on Day One, a man who consistently violates his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? I am not optimistic.
America was founded with three branches of government, a system of checks and balances that has served our nation and its citizens for almost 250 years. That is until our current President decided (along with his hand-picked Supreme Court majority) that he was above the law. Like any other citizen, a president must obey the law. Trump’s defiance of court orders is seriously anti-constitution, perhaps unprecedented in American history. Even former Crook-in-Chief Richard Nixon obeyed the court’s orders. He fought, within the law, to retain his Oval Office recordings but turned them over when he lost in court. Constitutional questions or interpretations are the function of the judiciary branch, not the executive. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship or monarchy. A president cannot decide the legality of his actions unless his name is Putin. If Trump believes he is properly invoking a centuries-old wartime law, he must prove it in court.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is serious stuff. Future generations of schoolchildren will carefully study Trumpism and the three branches of government. Trump lies, cheats, steals, and is found guilty of felonies only to avoid consequences. Multiple attempts to hold him accountable resulted in his reelection and a Supreme Court decision granting him almost total immunity for actions taken in office. Today, he abuses immigrants and federal employees. Tomorrow, will Trump trample on your precious rights?
Where is Congress, our last, best hope for a restoration of checks and balances? So far, the Republican majority seems willing to step aside and allow Trump to defy the Constitution. If there is no effective judicial branch check and no practical legislative branch check, Trump has the power he has always craved, that of a dictator or monarch. As I stated in my previous post, America is in deep trouble. Is there any hope?
Well . . . maybe. In America, court orders must be obeyed, even by a rogue POTUS. U.S. Disobedience to such orders may lead to contempt of court charges. Under 18 U.S.C. § 401, federal courts are authorized to punish acts of disobedience or resistance to their lawful writs, orders, or commands. Punishment could include fines or imprisonment.
Contempt of court is categorized into civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt aims to compel compliance with court orders, often through fines or imprisonment until the party complies. On the other hand, criminal contempt seeks to punish disobedience, serving as a deterrent against future violations. In both scenarios, the integrity and authority of the judiciary are upheld by ensuring that its orders are respected and followed.
The administration’s decision to proceed with deportations despite a clear judicial mandate to halt them constitutes a blatant act of defiance. Such actions erode the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. Historically, presidents have adhered to court orders even during contentious periods, recognizing the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law. The deliberate choice to ignore such orders sets a dangerous precedent. The problem isn’t the judge’s authority; enforcement relies on executive agencies like the U.S. Marshall’s office, part of Pam Bondi’s Justice Department, to enforce the order. If the administration disregards the court’s orders and any subsequent contempt citation, the judiciary’s ability to enforce its decisions is severely hampered. This scenario underscores the importance of mutual respect among government branches and adherence to established legal processes.
The Trump administration’s defiance of court orders halting mass deportations is a clear violation of the law and constitutes contempt of court. This behavior undermines the judiciary’s authority, disrupts the balance of power among government branches, and sets a perilous precedent for future administrations. Upholding the rule of law necessitates that all branches of government respect and adhere to judicial decisions, ensuring that no entity operates above the law. Failure to do so erodes the public trust and threatens the foundations of American democracy.
While holding a president in contempt presents challenges due to executive immunity and the separation of powers, other officials involved in executing these deportations could face legal repercussions, including fines or imprisonment. Courts may also employ injunctions or declaratory judgments to assert their authority and compel compliance. The Trump administration’s defiance of court orders halting mass deportations poses a significant threat to the foundational principles of America’s legal system. Upholding the rule of law requires adherence to judicial decisions, respect for due process, and a commitment to the constitutional balance of powers. Failure to enforce these principles undermines the protections afforded to all individuals by democratic governance. Unless Congressional Republicans decide to put their oath to the United States Constitution ahead of their fealty to a dangerous and demented wannabe dictator, our country is sailing into extremely troubled waters.