Unfortunately for the Trump administration, they find themselves in a legally precarious position. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently disclosed that it’s employing the “state secrets privilege” to refuse to disclose key information about what it’s doing. This legal maneuver leads to troubling questions not only about the administration’s respect for court rulings, but about its deportation policy on the whole. Things get much more complicated when you consider Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s timely, then, to clarify the powers and responsibilities of the President through this article. Third, the Alien Enemies Act grants the President wartime discretion, further complicating the analysis.
As the administration fights through these latest legal challenges, its extremely antagonistic history with the judiciary becomes a topic of discussion. In all of this, it should be noted that though Trump’s court battles are unprecedented, presidential-judicial tension is nothing new. The specter of contempt-of-Congress citations and even impeachment looms large over the administration. This worry increases in light of recent events surrounding deportations and judicial orders.
State Secrets and Judicial Orders
The invocation of the “state secrets privilege” by the Trump administration has raised eyebrows among legal experts and lawmakers alike. This privilege permits the government to deny discovery on information that, if disclosed, would damage national security. Detractors say that it must not be used to cover up a lack of accountability.
At a recent court hearing, Judge James Boasberg put the Justice Department on the hot seat. He even asked if the administration had disobeyed a deportation restraining order. He underscored the importance of transparent communication. The Constitution does not permit coy psychic defiance of judicial commands – least of all from members of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution,” he said. His comments were merely the most recent tip of a burgeoning iceberg of concern about this administration’s respect for judicial authority.
Further complicating matters, a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that Trump facilitate the return of deported Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, demonstrating that even high-level decisions can be overturned by the judiciary. Though numerous legal challenges have already been brought, it will be interesting to see what the administration does with them.
The Consequences of Non-Compliance
The stakes for Trump if he ignores court instructions are high. Deep legal experts have suggested that intentionally violating a court order could be an impeachable offense. Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar, noted, “Flouting a court order would be an impeachable offence for failing to faithfully execute the laws as required by Article 2 of the Constitution.” Though legally questionable, this assertion highlights just how severe this moment is and what it could mean for the Trump presidency.
Further, Congress certainly has the power to impeach a sitting president for high crimes and misdemeanors, such as violations of court orders. In order to impeach Trump and force him from office, the House must first vote a simple majority. Then, the Senate must pass it as well with two-thirds approval. In light of the current political climate, such actions would be very controversial and complicated.
James Boasberg’s inquiry into whether the Trump administration had disregarded his restraining order highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining checks and balances on executive power. As he noted, defendants were bragging that they intentionally disobeyed the Court’s Order. This indicates they do not fear the courts but rather they have a dangerously hostile disposition towards judicial review.
Legal Landscape and Political Implications
Trying to navigate an unprecedented, rolling wave of legal challenges, the Trump administration… Continue reading. As reported by non-partisan digital law and policy journal Just Security, more than 190 cases have been filed over the administration’s policies. These challenges cover a broad range of topics, from immigration policy to nationwide executive orders.
In April, Boasberg presided over a hearing to find DPI in contempt of court. Later on, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele bragged on social media about El Salvador’s acceptance of multiple gang members from the U.S. His statement underlined how damaging U.S. deportation policies can be. These types of claims create a further imperative for the administration to explain its actions in the context of a judicial order.
In opposition, Chief Justice John Roberts implored Congress not to use impeachment as a tool to respond to disagreements with the judiciary’s rulings. Further, he added, “Impeachment is not the right remedy for policy disagreement with a judicial ruling.” He strongly stressed that respect among different branches of government is needed.
