Latest news with #ArticleIIIProject
The Herald Scotland
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's clash with judges escalates to 'all-out war'
"It's an all-out war on the lower courts," said former federal Judge John Jones III, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. More: 'Spaghetti against the wall?' Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies As the clash becomes a defining moment in the president's second term, conservative activists are pushing Congress to rein in federal judges and pressing Trump to intensify his fight with the courts. The Article III Project, a Trump-aligned group, arranged164,000 phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress in recent weeks urging lawmakers to back Trump in this judiciary fight. They called for impeaching Judge James Boasberg - one of the federal judges who has drawn MAGA's ire - after he ordered a temporary halt to Trump's effort to deport some immigrants. They also want lawmakers to cut the federal budget for the judiciary by $2 billion after Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze that amount of foreign aid. The group is supporting bills introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, aimed at stopping federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders, which have blocked some of Trump's policies. Mike Davis, a former Republican Senate aide and the Article III Project's founder and leader, said the legislation sends a message to Chief Justice John Roberts as the Supreme Court weighs taking a position on the injunctions. Issa's bill has cleared the House, while Grassley's has yet to advance. Related: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile "It's really effective," Davis said. "When you talk about these legislative reforms it scares the hell out of the chief justice." Constitutional crisis warnings Pizzas have been sent anonymously to the homes of judges and their relatives, prompting judges to raise concerns about apparent intimidation tactics. In his year-end report in December, Roberts warned that the court's independence is under threat from violence. More: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: Courts' independence under threat from violence Activists on the right are adopting some of the language being employed by Trump critics about an impending constitutional crisis, but with a very different meaning: opponents say Trump threatens the Constitution's separation of powers by ignoring court rulings, while Trump supporters say judges are usurping the president's rightful executive authority. Both argue that the nation is at a perilous moment. More: Kamala Harris doesn't hold back in sharp rebuke of Trump's first 100 days ' Steve Bannon - the president's former White House chief strategist - is predicting an explosive summer of crisis with the judicial battle at the center, saying on his podcast recently that the nation is approaching "a cataclysmic" moment. Many of Trump's critics agree, but believe it's a crisis of Trump and the right's own making. "Some allies of the administration are inviting the constitutional crisis... because they want to enfeeble our judiciary and destroy our system of checks and balances," said Gregg Nunziata, an aide for Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate and now the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by conservative legal figures from previous Republican administrations. Executive orders and a clash between government branches Trump has pushed the boundaries of executive power during his first four months in office with aggressive moves that are drawing legal challenges, including shuttering whole federal agencies, mass layoffs of federal workers, firing members of independent board and taking dramatic steps to deport undocumented immigrants. He also has invoked a 1798 wartime law to more quickly whisk people out of the country. Trump's actions have sparked nearly 250 legal challenges so far. The court cases have resulted in at least 25 nationwide injunctions through late April temporarily halting Trump's actions, according to the Congressional Research Service. More: Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts Frustrated with unfavorable court decisions, the administration has taken an increasingly hostile stance to the federal bench. Trump complained in a May 11 social media post about a "radicalized and incompetent Court System." "The American people resoundingly voted to enforce our immigration laws and mass deport terrorist illegal aliens," said White House spokesman Kush Desai. "Despite what activist judges have to say, the Trump administration is legally using every lever of authority granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to deliver on this mandate." The clash with the courts has sparked talk of a breakdown in the constitutional order. After the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador and the administration continued to resist bringing him back, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, declared: "The constitutional crisis is here. President Trump is disobeying lawful court orders." Bannon talked in an NPR interview about a "constitutional crisis that we're hurtling to." Trump and allies such as Davis have complained that the judges ruling against him are left wing partisans. "Once judges take off their judicial robes and enter the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counter punches," Davis said. Yet some of the president's biggest legal setbacks have come from Republican-appointed judges, including multiple judges appointed by Trump. Judge Fernando Rodriguez of the Southern District of Texas is a Trump appointee who ruled against him on using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport certain migrants. Another Trump appointee, Judge Trevor McFadden with the D.C. District, ruled last month that the Trump administration must reinstate access to presidential events for the Associated Press news agency, which had been barred because it continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" instead of Gulf of America in its coverage. More: Judge lifts Trump restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds over 'Gulf of Mexico' Jones, who had a lifetime appointment to serve as a federal judge beginning in 2002 until he left to become president of Dickinson College in 2021, called the rhetoric directed at judges by the Trump administration "abominable... and entirely inappropriate." "It absolutely misrepresents the way the judges decide cases," he said. "And unfortunately, many people are listening to this and and they're getting a completely mistaken impression of how judges do their jobs." Due process rights, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments One of the biggest points of contention has been due process rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving any person "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The same rights American citizens have to contest government actions against them in court extend to undocumented immigrants facing detention and deportation. Trump came into office promising mass deportations and has moved aggressively, including invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which allows for the targeting of certain immigrants "without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship," according to the Brennan Center for Justice. More: Trump has cracked down on immigration and the border. At what cost? Courts have balked at his tactics. In the most high-profile case, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court on May 16 also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to more quickly deport a group migrants held in Texas, sending the case back to the appeals court to decide the merits of whether the president's use of the legislation is lawful, and if so what process should be used to remove people. The administration hasn't brought Abrego Garcia back, and Trump has expressed frustration with the judiciary's insistence on due process. He lashed out after the latest Supreme Court ruling, writing on social media that the court "is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do." Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brought up the debate on May 9 when he said the administration is investigating suspending habeas due process rights, which only is allowed by the Constitution to preserve public safety during "Rebellion or Invasion." "It's an option we're actively looking at," Miller said. "Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." Conservative media figure Rogan O'Handley told USA TODAY he saw online commentary about suspending habeas corpus and began promoting it to the 2.2 million followers of his @DC_Draino X handle. He said he was dismayed by the judicial rulings against Trump's immigration agenda and seized on the idea to "get around" the courts. "We had to step up the intensity of our tactics," he said. More: Trump administration floats suspending habeas corpus: What's that? O'Handley went on Bannon's podcast April 22 to promote suspending habeas. He was invited to join the White House press briefing on April 28 and asked a question about it. Two days later, on April 30, Trump was asked during a Cabinet meeting about his administration's planned response to the rash of nationwide injunctions against his deportation efforts and seemed to allude to suspending habeas. The idea - last done in Hawaii in 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor - highlights how the Trump administration is determined to push through any legal or constitutional obstacle to its deportation plans. Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts Among Trump's biggest obstacles so far during the second term is the judiciary, which repeatedly has blocked some of his actions, calling his methods unlawful and drawing his ire. "We need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant," Trump told reporters recently on Air Force One. "We have millions of people that have come in here illegally, and we can't have a trial for every single person." Immigration cases don't go before a jury, but instead are decided solely by an immigration judge. Miller has complained about a "judicial coup" while Bannon, the podcaster and White House chief strategist during Trump's first administration, says there is a "judicial insurrection." Another judge puts himself in charge of the Pentagon. This is a judicial coup. — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 7, 2025 The conflict has been brewing for months. Trump said March 18 on social media that a federal judge who ruled against him in an immigration case should be impeached, drawing a rare rebuke from Roberts, the chief justice of the United States and another Bush appointee. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in March. Tensions have only escalated. On April 25 federal authorities announced charges against a Wisconsin judge and former New Mexico judge, accusing them of hampering immigration enforcement efforts. Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty May 15. On May 22, the House passed Trump's sweeping tax legislation and included language inside the more than 1,100-page measure that could protect the Trump administration if a judge determined officials violated a court order. The language limits a judge's ability to hold someone in contempt of court if they "fail to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order." Suspending habeas corpus? Constitutional scholars told USA TODAY the Trump administration can't suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval. "If President Trump were to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus that's flagrantly unconstitutional," said University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt. Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell, a former deputy solicitor general during Democratic President Bill Clinton's administration, said "the standard position of the vast majority of constitutional lawyers is that Congress alone" can suspend habeas corpus. "This is not a close call," he said. More: Judge finds Trump administration disregarded order on Venezuelan deportations Any attempt to suspend due process rights would be a shocking move, the equivalent of a "legal earthquake," said Jones. Miller's comments added to the growing alarm among those concerned the Trump administration is threatening the rule of law and a constitutional crisis. Judges have reprimanded the Trump administration for not following their rulings. Boasberg found probable cause last month to hold the administration in contempt for "deliberately and gleefully" violating one of his orders. And Judge Brian Murphy with the Federal District Court in Boston ruled May 21 that the Trump administration "unquestionably" violated his order not to deport people to countries that are not their own without giving them an opportunity to contest the move. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a May 22 press briefing that the "administration has complied with all court orders," slammed Murphy's ruling and complained about "radical" judges. Murphy is "undermining our immigration system, undermining our foreign policy and our national security," Leavitt said. Jones said the administration is playing "games with the lower courts" but the real sign of a constitutional crisis would be if the Supreme Court sets a "bright line" that the Trump administration disregards. "We're on the verge, maybe, of that," he said.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war'
Arresting judges. Threatening their impeachment. Routinely slamming them on social media and trying to go around them completely. President Donald Trump and his allies have led an intense pressure campaign on the judiciary four months into his administration. Both sides of the political spectrum are using the term constitutional crisis. 'It's an all-out war on the lower courts,' said former federal Judge John Jones III, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. More: 'Spaghetti against the wall?' Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies As the clash becomes a defining moment in the president's second term, conservative activists are pushing Congress to rein in federal judges and pressing Trump to intensify his fight with the courts. The Article III Project, a Trump-aligned group, arranged 164,000 phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress in recent weeks urging lawmakers to back Trump in this judiciary fight. They called for impeaching Judge James Boasberg - one of the federal judges who has drawn MAGA's ire - after he ordered a temporary halt to Trump's effort to deport some immigrants. They also want lawmakers to cut the federal budget for the judiciary by $2 billion after Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze that amount of foreign aid. The group is supporting bills introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, aimed at stopping federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders, which have blocked some of Trump's policies. Mike Davis, a former Republican Senate aide and the Article III Project's founder and leader, said the legislation sends a message to Chief Justice John Roberts as the Supreme Court weighs taking a position on the injunctions. Issa's bill has cleared the House, while Grassley's has yet to advance. Related: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile "It's really effective," Davis said. "When you talk about these legislative reforms it scares the hell out of the chief justice.' Pizzas have been sent anonymously to the homes of judges and their relatives, prompting judges to raise concerns about apparent intimidation tactics. In his year-end report in December, Roberts warned that the court's independence is under threat from violence. More: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: Courts' independence under threat from violence Activists on the right are adopting some of the language being employed by Trump critics about an impending constitutional crisis, but with a very different meaning: opponents say Trump threatens the Constitution's separation of powers by ignoring court rulings, while Trump supporters say judges are usurping the president's rightful executive authority. Both argue that the nation is at a perilous moment. More: Kamala Harris doesn't hold back in sharp rebuke of Trump's first 100 days ' Steve Bannon − the president's former White House chief strategist − is predicting an explosive summer of crisis with the judicial battle at the center, saying on his podcast recently that the nation is approaching "a cataclysmic' moment. Many of Trump's critics agree, but believe it's a crisis of Trump and the right's own making. "Some allies of the administration are inviting the constitutional crisis... because they want to enfeeble our judiciary and destroy our system of checks and balances," said Gregg Nunziata, an aide for Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate and now the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by conservative legal figures from previous Republican administrations. Trump has pushed the boundaries of executive power during his first four months in office with aggressive moves that are drawing legal challenges, including shuttering whole federal agencies, mass layoffs of federal workers, firing members of independent board and taking dramatic steps to deport undocumented immigrants. He also has invoked a 1798 wartime law to more quickly whisk people out of the country. Trump's actions have sparked nearly 250 legal challenges so far. The court cases have resulted in at least 25 nationwide injunctions through late April temporarily halting Trump's actions, according to the Congressional Research Service. More: Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts Frustrated with unfavorable court decisions, the administration has taken an increasingly hostile stance to the federal bench. Trump complained in a May 11 social media post about a 'radicalized and incompetent Court System.' 'The American people resoundingly voted to enforce our immigration laws and mass deport terrorist illegal aliens," said White House spokesman Kush Desai. "Despite what activist judges have to say, the Trump administration is legally using every lever of authority granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to deliver on this mandate.' The clash with the courts has sparked talk of a breakdown in the constitutional order. After the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador and the administration continued to resist bringing him back, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, declared: "The constitutional crisis is here. President Trump is disobeying lawful court orders." Bannon talked in an NPR interview about a "constitutional crisis that we're hurtling to." Trump and allies such as Davis have complained that the judges ruling against him are left wing partisans. "Once judges take off their judicial robes and enter the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counter punches," Davis said. Yet some of the president's biggest legal setbacks have come from Republican-appointed judges, including multiple judges appointed by Trump. Judge Fernando Rodriguez of the Southern District of Texas is a Trump appointee who ruled against him on using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport certain migrants. Another Trump appointee, Judge Trevor McFadden with the D.C. District, ruled last month that the Trump administration must reinstate access to presidential events for the Associated Press news agency, which had been barred because it continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" instead of Gulf of America in its coverage. More: Judge lifts Trump restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds over 'Gulf of Mexico' Jones, who had a lifetime appointment to serve as a federal judge beginning in 2002 until he left to become president of Dickinson College in 2021, called the rhetoric directed at judges by the Trump administration "abominable... and entirely inappropriate." "It absolutely misrepresents the way the judges decide cases," he said. "And unfortunately, many people are listening to this and and they're getting a completely mistaken impression of how judges do their jobs." One of the biggest points of contention has been due process rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving any person 'of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The same rights American citizens have to contest government actions against them in court extend to undocumented immigrants facing detention and deportation. Trump came into office promising mass deportations and has moved aggressively, including invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which allows for the targeting of certain immigrants "without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship," according to the Brennan Center for Justice. More: Trump has cracked down on immigration and the border. At what cost? Courts have balked at his tactics. In the most high-profile case, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court on May 16 also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to more quickly deport a group migrants held in Texas, sending the case back to the appeals court to decide the merits of whether the president's use of the legislation is lawful, and if so what process should be used to remove people. The administration hasn't brought Abrego Garcia back, and Trump has expressed frustration with the judiciary's insistence on due process. He lashed out after the latest Supreme Court ruling, writing on social media that the court "is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do." Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brought up the debate on May 9 when he said the administration is investigating suspending habeas due process rights, which only is allowed by the Constitution to preserve public safety during 'Rebellion or Invasion.' 'It's an option we're actively looking at,' Miller said. 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' Conservative media figure Rogan O'Handley told USA TODAY he saw online commentary about suspending habeas corpus and began promoting it to the 2.2 million followers of his @DC_Draino X handle. He said he was dismayed by the judicial rulings against Trump's immigration agenda and seized on the idea to 'get around' the courts. 'We had to step up the intensity of our tactics,' he said. More: Trump administration floats suspending habeas corpus: What's that? O'Handley went on Bannon's podcast April 22 to promote suspending habeas. He was invited to join the White House press briefing on April 28 and asked a question about it. Two days later, on April 30, Trump was asked during a Cabinet meeting about his administration's planned response to the rash of nationwide injunctions against his deportation efforts and seemed to allude to suspending habeas. The idea – last done in Hawaii in 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor – highlights how the Trump administration is determined to push through any legal or constitutional obstacle to its deportation plans. Among Trump's biggest obstacles so far during the second term is the judiciary, which repeatedly has blocked some of his actions, calling his methods unlawful and drawing his ire. 'We need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant," Trump told reporters recently on Air Force One. "We have millions of people that have come in here illegally, and we can't have a trial for every single person.' Immigration cases don't go before a jury, but instead are decided solely by an immigration judge. Miller has complained about a 'judicial coup' while Bannon, the podcaster and White House chief strategist during Trump's first administration, says there is a 'judicial insurrection.' The conflict has been brewing for months. Trump said March 18 on social media that a federal judge who ruled against him in an immigration case should be impeached, drawing a rare rebuke from Roberts, the chief justice of the United States and another Bush appointee. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said in March. Tensions have only escalated. On April 25 federal authorities announced charges against a Wisconsin judge and former New Mexico judge, accusing them of hampering immigration enforcement efforts. Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty May 15. On May 22, the House passed Trump's sweeping tax legislation and included language inside the more than 1,100-page measure that could protect the Trump administration if a judge determined officials violated a court order. The language limits a judge's ability to hold someone in contempt of court if they "fail to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order." Constitutional scholars told USA TODAY the Trump administration can't suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval. 'If President Trump were to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus that's flagrantly unconstitutional,' said University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt. Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell, a former deputy solicitor general during Democratic President Bill Clinton's administration, said 'the standard position of the vast majority of constitutional lawyers is that Congress alone' can suspend habeas corpus. 'This is not a close call,' he said. More: Judge finds Trump administration disregarded order on Venezuelan deportations Any attempt to suspend due process rights would be a shocking move, the equivalent of a 'legal earthquake,' said Jones. Miller's comments added to the growing alarm among those concerned the Trump administration is threatening the rule of law and a constitutional crisis. Judges have reprimanded the Trump administration for not following their rulings. Boasberg found probable cause last month to hold the administration in contempt for "deliberately and gleefully" violating one of his orders. And Judge Brian Murphy with the Federal District Court in Boston ruled May 21 that the Trump administration "unquestionably" violated his order not to deport people to countries that are not their own without giving them an opportunity to contest the move. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a May 22 press briefing that the "administration has complied with all court orders," slammed Murphy's ruling and complained about "radical" judges. Murphy is "undermining our immigration system, undermining our foreign policy and our national security," Leavitt said. Jones said the administration is playing 'games with the lower courts' but the real sign of a constitutional crisis would be if the Supreme Court sets a 'bright line' that the Trump administration disregards. "We're on the verge, maybe, of that," he said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's clash with judges escalates to 'all-out war'
USA Today
6 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war'
How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Frustrated by judicial rulings during his second term, President Trump and allies have lashed out at the courts in a growing pressure campaign. Show Caption Hide Caption What to know about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 President Trump wants to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Here's what you need to know about the wartime law. Conservative activists are also bombarding Congress with demands to rein in federal judges. Activists on the right are adopting some of the language being employed by Trump critics about an impending constitutional crisis, but with a very different meaning. Trump's actions have sparked nearly 250 legal challenges so far. The court cases have resulted in at least 25 nationwide injunctions through late April temporarily halting Trump's actions Arresting judges. Threatening their impeachment. Routinely slamming them on social media and trying to go around them completely. President Donald Trump and his allies have led an intense pressure campaign on the judiciary four months into his administration. Both sides of the political spectrum are using the term constitutional crisis. 'It's an all-out war on the lower courts,' said former federal Judge John Jones III, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. More: 'Spaghetti against the wall?' Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies As the clash becomes a defining moment in the president's second term, conservative activists are pushing Congress to rein in federal judges and pressing Trump to intensify his fight with the courts. The Article III Project, a Trump-aligned group, arranged164,000 phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress in recent weeks urging lawmakers to back Trump in this judiciary fight. They called for impeaching Judge James Boasberg - one of the federal judges who has drawn MAGA's ire - after he ordered a temporary halt to Trump's effort to deport some immigrants. They also want lawmakers to cut the federal budget for the judiciary by $2 billion after Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze that amount of foreign aid. The group is supporting bills introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, aimed at stopping federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders, which have blocked some of Trump's policies. Mike Davis, a former Republican Senate aide and the Article III Project's founder and leader, said the legislation sends a message to Chief Justice John Roberts as the Supreme Court weighs taking a position on the injunctions. Issa's bill has cleared the House, while Grassley's has yet to advance. Related: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile "It's really effective," Davis said. "When you talk about these legislative reforms it scares the hell out of the chief justice.' Constitutional crisis warnings Pizzas have been sent anonymously to the homes of judges and their relatives, prompting judges to raise concerns about apparent intimidation tactics. In his year-end report in December, Roberts warned that the court's independence is under threat from violence. More: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: Courts' independence under threat from violence Activists on the right are adopting some of the language being employed by Trump critics about an impending constitutional crisis, but with a very different meaning: opponents say Trump threatens the Constitution's separation of powers by ignoring court rulings, while Trump supporters say judges are usurping the president's rightful executive authority. Both argue that the nation is at a perilous moment. More: Kamala Harris doesn't hold back in sharp rebuke of Trump's first 100 days ' Steve Bannon − the president's former White House chief strategist − is predicting an explosive summer of crisis with the judicial battle at the center, saying on his podcast recently that the nation is approaching "a cataclysmic' moment. Many of Trump's critics agree, but believe it's a crisis of Trump and the right's own making. "Some allies of the administration are inviting the constitutional crisis... because they want to enfeeble our judiciary and destroy our system of checks and balances," said Gregg Nunziata, an aide for Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate and now the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by conservative legal figures from previous Republican administrations. Executive orders and a clash between government branches Trump has pushed the boundaries of executive power during his first four months in office with aggressive moves that are drawing legal challenges, including shuttering whole federal agencies, mass layoffs of federal workers, firing members of independent board and taking dramatic steps to deport undocumented immigrants. He also has invoked a 1798 wartime law to more quickly whisk people out of the country. Trump's actions have sparked nearly 250 legal challenges so far. The court cases have resulted in at least 25 nationwide injunctions through late April temporarily halting Trump's actions, according to the Congressional Research Service. More: Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts Frustrated with unfavorable court decisions, the administration has taken an increasingly hostile stance to the federal bench. Trump complained in a May 11 social media post about a 'radicalized and incompetent Court System.' 'The American people resoundingly voted to enforce our immigration laws and mass deport terrorist illegal aliens," said White House spokesman Kush Desai. "Despite what activist judges have to say, the Trump administration is legally using every lever of authority granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to deliver on this mandate.' The clash with the courts has sparked talk of a breakdown in the constitutional order. After the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador and the administration continued to resist bringing him back, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, declared: "The constitutional crisis is here. President Trump is disobeying lawful court orders." Bannon talked in an NPR interview about a "constitutional crisis that we're hurtling to." Trump and allies such as Davis have complained that the judges ruling against him are left wing partisans. "Once judges take off their judicial robes and enter the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counter punches," Davis said. Yet some of the president's biggest legal setbacks have come from Republican-appointed judges, including multiple judges appointed by Trump. Judge Fernando Rodriguez of the Southern District of Texas is a Trump appointee who ruled against him on using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport certain migrants. Another Trump appointee, Judge Trevor McFadden with the D.C. District, ruled last month that the Trump administration must reinstate access to presidential events for the Associated Press news agency, which had been barred because it continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" instead of Gulf of America in its coverage. More: Judge lifts Trump restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds over 'Gulf of Mexico' Jones, who had a lifetime appointment to serve as a federal judge beginning in 2002 until he left to become president of Dickinson College in 2021, called the rhetoric directed at judges by the Trump administration "abominable... and entirely inappropriate." "It absolutely misrepresents the way the judges decide cases," he said. "And unfortunately, many people are listening to this and and they're getting a completely mistaken impression of how judges do their jobs." Due process rights, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments One of the biggest points of contention has been due process rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving any person 'of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The same rights American citizens have to contest government actions against them in court extend to undocumented immigrants facing detention and deportation. Trump came into office promising mass deportations and has moved aggressively, including invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which allows for the targeting of certain immigrants "without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship," according to the Brennan Center for Justice. More: Trump has cracked down on immigration and the border. At what cost? Courts have balked at his tactics. In the most high-profile case, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court on May 16 also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to more quickly deport a group migrants held in Texas, sending the case back to the appeals court to decide the merits of whether the president's use of the legislation is lawful, and if so what process should be used to remove people. The administration hasn't brought Abrego Garcia back, and Trump has expressed frustration with the judiciary's insistence on due process. He lashed out after the latest Supreme Court ruling, writing on social media that the court "is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do." Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brought up the debate on May 9 when he said the administration is investigating suspending habeas due process rights, which only is allowed by the Constitution to preserve public safety during 'Rebellion or Invasion.' 'It's an option we're actively looking at,' Miller said. 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' Conservative media figure Rogan O'Handley told USA TODAY he saw online commentary about suspending habeas corpus and began promoting it to the 2.2 million followers of his @DC_Draino X handle. He said he was dismayed by the judicial rulings against Trump's immigration agenda and seized on the idea to 'get around' the courts. 'We had to step up the intensity of our tactics,' he said. More: Trump administration floats suspending habeas corpus: What's that? O'Handley went on Bannon's podcast April 22 to promote suspending habeas. He was invited to join the White House press briefing on April 28 and asked a question about it. Two days later, on April 30, Trump was asked during a Cabinet meeting about his administration's planned response to the rash of nationwide injunctions against his deportation efforts and seemed to allude to suspending habeas. The idea – last done in Hawaii in 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor – highlights how the Trump administration is determined to push through any legal or constitutional obstacle to its deportation plans. Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts Among Trump's biggest obstacles so far during the second term is the judiciary, which repeatedly has blocked some of his actions, calling his methods unlawful and drawing his ire. 'We need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant," Trump told reporters recently on Air Force One. "We have millions of people that have come in here illegally, and we can't have a trial for every single person.' Immigration cases don't go before a jury, but instead are decided solely by an immigration judge. Miller has complained about a 'judicial coup' while Bannon, the podcaster and White House chief strategist during Trump's first administration, says there is a 'judicial insurrection.' Another judge puts himself in charge of the Pentagon. This is a judicial coup. — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 7, 2025 The conflict has been brewing for months. Trump said March 18 on social media that a federal judge who ruled against him in an immigration case should be impeached, drawing a rare rebuke from Roberts, the chief justice of the United States and another Bush appointee. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said in March. Tensions have only escalated. On April 25 federal authorities announced charges against a Wisconsin judge and former New Mexico judge, accusing them of hampering immigration enforcement efforts. Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty May 15. On May 22, the House passed Trump's sweeping tax legislation and included language inside the more than 1,100-page measure that could protect the Trump administration if a judge determined officials violated a court order. The language limits a judge's ability to hold someone in contempt of court if they "fail to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order." Suspending habeas corpus? Constitutional scholars told USA TODAY the Trump administration can't suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval. 'If President Trump were to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus that's flagrantly unconstitutional,' said University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt. Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell, a former deputy solicitor general during Democratic President Bill Clinton's administration, said 'the standard position of the vast majority of constitutional lawyers is that Congress alone' can suspend habeas corpus. 'This is not a close call,' he said. More: Judge finds Trump administration disregarded order on Venezuelan deportations Any attempt to suspend due process rights would be a shocking move, the equivalent of a 'legal earthquake,' said Jones. Miller's comments added to the growing alarm among those concerned the Trump administration is threatening the rule of law and a constitutional crisis. Judges have reprimanded the Trump administration for not following their rulings. Boasberg found probable cause last month to hold the administration in contempt for "deliberately and gleefully" violating one of his orders. And Judge Brian Murphy with the Federal District Court in Boston ruled May 21 that the Trump administration "unquestionably" violated his order not to deport people to countries that are not their own without giving them an opportunity to contest the move. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a May 22 press briefing that the "administration has complied with all court orders," slammed Murphy's ruling and complained about "radical" judges. Murphy is "undermining our immigration system, undermining our foreign policy and our national security," Leavitt said. Jones said the administration is playing 'games with the lower courts' but the real sign of a constitutional crisis would be if the Supreme Court sets a 'bright line' that the Trump administration disregards. "We're on the verge, maybe, of that," he said.
Chicago Tribune
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Trump's clash with the courts raises prospect of showdown over separation of powers
DENVER — Tucked deep in the thousand-plus pages of the multitrillion-dollar budget bill making its way through the Republican-controlled U.S. House is a paragraph curtailing a court's greatest tool for forcing the government to obey its rulings: the power to enforce contempt findings. It's unclear whether the bill can pass the House in its current form — it failed in a committee vote Friday — whether the U.S. Senate would preserve the contempt provision or whether courts would uphold it. But the fact that GOP lawmakers are including it shows how much those in power in the nation's capital are thinking about the consequences of defying judges as the battle between the Trump administration and the courts escalates. Republican President Donald Trump raised the stakes again Friday when he attacked the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling barring his administration from quickly resuming deportations under an 18th-century wartime law: 'THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!' Trump posted on his social media network, Truth Social. The most intense skirmishes have come in the lower courts. One federal judge has found that members of the administration may be liable for contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Trump's administration has scoffed at another judge's ruling that it 'facilitate' the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, even though the Supreme Court upheld that decision. In other cases, the administration has removed immigrants against court orders or had judges find that the administration is not complying with their directives. Dan Bongino, now Trump's deputy director of the FBI, called on the president to 'ignore' a judge's order in one of Bongino's final appearances on his talk radio show in February. 'Who's going to arrest him? The marshals?' Bongino asked, naming the agency that enforces federal judges' criminal contempt orders. 'You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice.' The rhetoric obscures the fact that the administration has complied with the vast majority of court rulings against it, many of them related to Trump's executive orders. Trump has said multiple times he will comply with orders, even as he attacks by name judges who rule against him. While skirmishes over whether the federal government is complying with court orders are not unusual, it's the intensity of the Trump administration's pushback that is, legal experts say. 'It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,' said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor. 'It's what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.' Mike Davis, whose Article III Project pushes for pro-Trump judicial appointments, predicted that Trump will prevail over what he sees as hostile judges. 'The more they do this, the more it's going to anger the American people, and the chief justice is going to follow the politics on this like he always does,' Davis said. The clash was the subtext of an unusual Supreme Court session Thursday, the day before the ruling that angered the president. His administration was seeking to stop lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions barring its initiatives. Previous administrations have also chafed against national orders, and multiple Supreme Court justices have expressed concern that they are overused. Still, at one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer over his assertion that the administration would not necessarily obey a ruling from an appeals court. 'Really?' asked Barrett, who was nominated to the court by Trump. Sauer contended that was standard Department of Justice policy and he assured the nation's highest court the administration would honor its rulings. Some justices have expressed alarm about whether the administration respects the rule of law. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, both nominated by Democratic presidents, have warned about government disobedience of court orders and threats toward judges. Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by a Republican president, George W. Bush, issued a statement condemning Trump's push to impeach James E. Boasberg, the federal judge who found probable cause that the administration committed contempt by ignoring his order on deportations. Even after the Supreme Court upheld a Maryland judge's ruling directing the administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the White House account on X said in a post: 'he's NOT coming back.' Legal experts said the Abrego Garcia case may be heading toward contempt. U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has complained of 'bad faith' from the administration as she orders reports on what, if anything, it's doing to comply with her order. But contempt processes are slow and deliberative, and, when the government's involved, there's usually a resolution before penalties kick in. Courts can hold parties to civil litigation or criminal cases in contempt for disobeying their orders. The penalty can take the form of fines or other civil punishments, or even prosecution and jail time, if pursued criminally. The provision in the Republican budget bill would prohibit courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders — the two main types of rulings used to rein in the Trump administration — unless the plaintiffs have paid a bond. That rarely happens when someone sues the government. In an extensive review of contempt cases involving the government, Yale law professor Nick Parrillo identified only 67 where someone was ultimately found in contempt. That was out of more than 650 cases where contempt was considered against the government. Appellate courts reliably overturned the penalties. But the higher courts always left open the possibility that the next contempt penalties could stick. 'The courts, for their part, don't want to find out how far their authority goes,' said David Noll, a Rutgers law professor, 'and the executive doesn't really want to undermine the legal order because the economy and their ability to just get stuff done depends on the law.' Legal experts are gaming out whether judges could appoint independent prosecutors or be forced to rely on Trump's Department of Justice. Then there's the question of whether U.S. marshals would arrest anyone convicted of the offense. 'If you get to the point of asking the marshals to arrest a contemnor, it's truly uncharted territory,' Noll said. There's a second form of contempt that could not be blocked by the Department of Justice –- civil contempt, leading to fines. This may be a more potent tool for judges because it doesn't rely on federal prosecution and cannot be expunged with a presidential pardon, said Justin Levitt, a department official in the Obama administration who also advised Democratic President Joe Biden. 'Should the courts want, they have the tools to make individuals who plan on defying the courts miserable,' Levitt said, noting that lawyers representing the administration and those taking specific actions to violate orders would be the most at risk. There are other deterrents courts have outside of contempt. Judges can stop treating the Justice Department like a trustworthy agency, making it harder for the government to win cases. There were indications in Friday's Supreme Court order that the majority didn't trust the administration's handling of the deportations. And defying courts is deeply unpopular: A recent Pew Research Center poll found that about 8 in 10 Americans say that if a federal court rules a Trump administration action is illegal, the government has to follow the court's decision and stop its action. That's part of the reason the broader picture might not be as dramatic as the fights over a few of the immigration cases, said Vladeck, the Georgetown professor. 'In the majority of these cases, the courts are successfully restraining the executive branch and the executive branch is abiding by their rulings,' he said.
18-05-2025
- Politics
Trump's clash with the courts raises prospect of showdown over separation of powers
DENVER -- Tucked deep in the thousand-plus pages of the multitrillion-dollar budget bill making its way through the Republican-controlled U.S. House is a paragraph curtailing a court's greatest tool for forcing the government to obey its rulings: the power to enforce contempt findings. It's unclear whether the bill can pass the House in its current form — it failed in a committee vote Friday — whether the U.S. Senate would preserve the contempt provision or whether courts would uphold it. But the fact that GOP lawmakers are including it shows how much those in power in the nation's capital are thinking about the consequences of defying judges as the battle between the Trump administration and the courts escalates. Republican President Donald Trump raised the stakes again Friday when he attacked the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling barring his administration from quickly resuming deportations under an 18th-century wartime law: 'THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!' Trump posted on his social media network, Truth Social. The most intense skirmishes have come in the lower courts. One federal judge has found that members of the administration may be liable for contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Trump's administration has scoffed at another judge's ruling that it 'facilitate' the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, even though the Supreme Court upheld that decision. In other cases, the administration has removed immigrants against court orders or had judges find that the administration is not complying with their directives. Dan Bongino, now Trump's deputy director of the FBI, called on the president to 'ignore' a judge's order in one of Bongino's final appearances on his talk radio show in February. 'Who's going to arrest him? The marshals?' Bongino asked, naming the agency that enforces federal judges' criminal contempt orders. 'You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice.' The rhetoric obscures the fact that the administration has complied with the vast majority of court rulings against it, many of them related to Trump's executive orders. Trump has said multiple times he will comply with orders, even as he attacks by name judges who rule against him. While skirmishes over whether the federal government is complying with court orders are not unusual, it's the intensity of the Trump administration's pushback that is, legal experts say. 'It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,' said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor. 'It's what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.' Mike Davis, whose Article III Project pushes for pro-Trump judicial appointments, predicted that Trump will prevail over what he sees as hostile judges. 'The more they do this, the more it's going to anger the American people, and the chief justice is going to follow the politics on this like he always does,' Davis said. The clash was the subtext of an unusual Supreme Court session Thursday, the day before the ruling that angered the president. His administration was seeking to stop lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions barring its initiatives. Previous administrations have also chafed against national orders, and multiple Supreme Court justices have expressed concern that they are overused. Still, at one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer over his assertion that the administration would not necessarily obey a ruling from an appeals court. 'Really?' asked Barrett, who was nominated to the court by Trump. Sauer contended that was standard Department of Justice policy and he assured the nation's highest court the administration would honor its rulings. Some justices have expressed alarm about whether the administration respects the rule of law. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, both nominated by Democratic presidents, have warned about government disobedience of court orders and threats toward judges. Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by a Republican president, George W. Bush, issued a statement condemning Trump's push to impeach James E. Boasberg, the federal judge who found probable cause that the administration committed contempt by ignoring his order on deportations. Even after the Supreme Court upheld a Maryland judge's ruling directing the administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the White House account on X said in a post: 'he's NOT coming back.' Legal experts said the Abrego Garcia case may be heading toward contempt. U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has complained of 'bad faith' from the administration as she orders reports on what, if anything, it's doing to comply with her order. But contempt processes are slow and deliberative, and, when the government's involved, there's usually a resolution before penalties kick in. Courts can hold parties to civil litigation or criminal cases in contempt for disobeying their orders. The penalty can take the form of fines or other civil punishments, or even prosecution and jail time, if pursued criminally. The provision in the Republican budget bill would prohibit courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders — the two main types of rulings used to rein in the Trump administration — unless the plaintiffs have paid a bond. That rarely happens when someone sues the government. In an extensive review of contempt cases involving the government, Yale law professor Nick Parrillo identified only 67 where someone was ultimately found in contempt. That was out of more than 650 cases where contempt was considered against the government. Appellate courts reliably overturned the penalties. But the higher courts always left open the possibility that the next contempt penalties could stick. 'The courts, for their part, don't want to find out how far their authority goes,' said David Noll, a Rutgers law professor, 'and the executive doesn't really want to undermine the legal order because the economy and their ability to just get stuff done depends on the law.' Legal experts are gaming out whether judges could appoint independent prosecutors or be forced to rely on Trump's Department of Justice. Then there's the question of whether U.S. marshals would arrest anyone convicted of the offense. 'If you get to the point of asking the marshals to arrest a contemnor, it's truly uncharted territory,' Noll said. There's a second form of contempt that could not be blocked by the Department of Justice –- civil contempt, leading to fines. This may be a more potent tool for judges because it doesn't rely on federal prosecution and cannot be expunged with a presidential pardon, said Justin Levitt, a department official in the Obama administration who also advised Democratic President Joe Biden. 'Should the courts want, they have the tools to make individuals who plan on defying the courts miserable,' Levitt said, noting that lawyers representing the administration and those taking specific actions to violate orders would be the most at risk. There are other deterrents courts have outside of contempt. Judges can stop treating the Justice Department like a trustworthy agency, making it harder for the government to win cases. There were indications in Friday's Supreme Court order that the majority didn't trust the administration's handling of the deportations. And defying courts is deeply unpopular: A recent Pew Research Center poll found that about 8 in 10 Americans say that if a federal court rules a Trump administration action is illegal, the government has to follow the court's decision and stop its action. That's part of the reason the broader picture might not be as dramatic as the fights over a few of the immigration cases, said Vladeck, the Georgetown professor. 'In the majority of these cases, the courts are successfully restraining the executive branch and the executive branch is abiding by their rulings,' he said.
