Is Trump’s government conflict with judges a constitutional crisis? What to know

When the administration of President Donald Trump entered the laws of law with state judges over controversial policies, and actions increased, constitutional law experts sound alarm that the country could move closer to the constitutional crisis.

What will involve the constitutional crisis, and when and how will it be triggered?

During the weekend, the government opposed the direction of the federal judge issued from the bench to reverse two flights carrying alleged Venezuela Gang members to El Salvador, after which the president and high officials said that they would encourage forward with deportation even though what was said by the court – while also pursuing appeal.

Administrative lawyers take the same position when the judge ordered funds from institutions such as USAIDs to be recovered or for frozen expenses, according to court documents.

‘Cover dangerous’

Professor of the Sudler Family Constitutional Law at the Nyu Richard Pildes Law School, who has been involved in many cases of Federal Courts, told ABC News that the court’s deviation undermined the Judicial Branch and could have serious consequences.

“I will say, we are very close to the constitutional crisis. Maybe we dance like on the edge of the constitutional crisis,” he told ABC News.

James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University who has been involved in federal cases, agreed that the country was in a “cliff” of such a crisis, noting that the court was limited to be able to uphold their decisions.

However, he noted, the court was designed to be intentional with the case.

“The court basically says, we need to slow down,” sample told ABC News. “Executive [branch] Maybe finally got what he wanted. … But if the executive gets what he wants without a process, then not only people lose, but we all lose justice. “

What is a constitutional crisis?

The sample said constitutional scholars were different in what actually defined the constitutional crisis.

“One thing we can say with certainty is that it is not an on-off switch,” said the sample of the constitutional crisis. “This is not binary. This is the position in the spectrum.”

Retired Chief Justice Stephen Breyer echoed the sentiment in an interview with CNN this week.

“No one is really knowing. People have different views about it,” he said.

The sample said Trump’s administrative actions drove closer to the alarming Spectrum section – a development, he said, could never be predicted by the founder of the state.

“What we experienced was not Blitzkrieg against [political] The enemy, but Blitzkrieg on the executive side against the rule of law itself. That is the decisive characteristic of the crisis for the rule of law, “said the sample.

Isolated past crisis

Apart from the succession of the confederation that led to the Civil War, ABC News experts spoke by saying that the samples of the past from the constitutional crisis finally exploded, such as when President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to advance with military courts against Nazi sympathizers from Long Island during World War II.

The US Supreme Court finally gave the president of power to advance, according to the Pildes.

In some cases, the executive branch has stepped up to uphold the court orders, such as when President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the National Guard to the south to comply with the Brown Education Board’s decision v.

“All of it [past examples] It is a kind of individual problem, discrete, not a kind of broader or systemic neglect to the court and legal decision by the executive branch, “said Pildes.

Trump’s administrative action places a court in the waters that have not been mapped

Trump’s administrative actions, on the contrary, experts said that they had never happened before because of good speed where administration imposed Trump’s policies and opponents challenged administrative steps in court.

“The executive has several capacities to change the facts on the ground before the court can act and may be difficult to cancel some of these actions, even if the court finally concludes that they break the law,” said Pildes.

The sample compares it with a computer that is so overloaded that it cannot process information.

“The volume of what happened, and the speed at which it was done, was crashing into a constitutional hard drive,” he said.

The situation has been played for the past few weeks because Trump claims that he will comply with a court order that issued a temporary detention order on his policy, such as deportation, mass dismissal of federal workers and releasing transgender services members; However, court documents have indicated that the order was not followed in many cases.

Trump and its allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, also pursued judge James Boasberg on social media after he issued a temporary detention order on the administration in the case that challenged the executive order of the President to deport the Venezuelan migrants.

“We historically do not see the idea of ​​attacking the judge [or] Attacking the court for the decision that we disagree and attack the system itself, “said the sample.” That’s a problem. “

Tools that can be used by the court to push back

Although pushbacks that have never happened before in court, experts say that justice does have a tool to prevent crises.

Pildes note that while the court faces challenges when they have to uphold their decisions on the executive branch directly, they can still take some actions to get administration.

The judge has threatened to use the findings and fines of insults, and the Pildes said the warning could be serious.

“If there are lawyers involved in suggesting to oppose court orders, or participate in the rejection of court orders, there may be sanctions for the lawyer. Their bar license can be at stake,” he said.

“If so, if there is an error in presentation made by a lawyer in court, it can also be approved by the lawyer,” added Pildes. “Sometimes the sanctions are enough to make them obedient. But if not, the court can start imposing fines.”

“When the executive rejection continues, more and more officials must be involved in taking this road with the executive not compliant,” he said.

The sample, however, noted that if the court chose insults, it could further test the waters of the constitution as the US Marshals service, which is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, will be involved by upholding orders.

“It is not made up to believe that Trump’s administration will, in dealing with humiliation orders, only telling US Marshals services not to uphold it,” he said. “This returns to the same principle that the glue that unites the constitutional structure is not just law, that is norm.”

There have been several pushbacks from the top level of trial against Trump’s rhetoric.

Chief Judge John Roberts reprimanded the call to the impeachment of the judge with a rare statement this week.

“For more than two centuries, it has been determined that the impeachment is not the right response for disagreement on justice decisions. The normal appeal process is for that purpose,” he said.

Trump rejected Roberts’ statement in an interview with Fox News, claiming Roberts did not directly mention his name. Trump and its allies continue to attack the federal judge verbally who have issued a troop on the implementation of policies and executive orders.

The role of the public is very important in avoiding the crisis

Samples and Peldes said that considering their actions so far over the past few weeks, it was impossible that the Congress controlled by the Republican party would step to curb Trump’s rhetoric and action and force him to comply with the court, however, public opinion would play a big role in preventing the country from entering the crisis, they debated.

“The tool, the arrow in the court quiver is the legitimacy and public belief in the legitimacy of the process of playing alone. One of the things that is a characteristic of a civilized society is that if citizens believe that a process is fair,” sample said.

Pildes noted that when the watergate scandal was revealed and at that time President Richard Nixon was forced by the Supreme Court to release the audio cassette involving it on an unpredictable violation, public opinion had turned on him and his allies in the congress to the point that he resigned.

Pildes added that public opinion could be expressed through the economy, which was watched by federal leaders attentively. The business and stock markets usually weaken if the government and the rule of law are disrupted and it can force the executive to rethink their resistance to the court, he said.

“If we leave [a constitutional crisis]You can easily imagine a lot of chaos that really appears in the market appears in the economy. People will stop wanting to invest here, “he said.

The sample said that the current state polarization would complicate public consensus, but he believed that in general, Americans would speak against whatever led to the crisis.

“Even if you are Maga Hardcore, and you think Donald Trump is a kind authoritarian, maybe there is a time where the next leader, with an authoritarian tendency, from your perspective, is not so kind,” he said. “So, if Americans want to push back against authoritarianism, they need to stand up and are willing to say I am oppose authoritarianism, even if it might produce the short -term results I want.”